Evaluation of Distance Education and Formal Education on Architectural Design Studio Practices and Student Perception with Comparative Analysis: Antalya Bilim University

Abstract

Due to the worldwide Covid pandemic in 2020, it has undergone compulsory in universities, including distance education architectural education. Universities in Turkey were affected by Covid too, with the decrease of the pandemic effect, even though it has been back to formal education, an earthquake occurred and affected 10 cities in Turkey, causing to passed of distance education again. In the 2023 period, the process; continued as a hybrid, both remotely and face-to-face. Also, the design studio culture, which is the backbone of architectural education, evolved with the changes in the distance education process of components such as drawing, sketches, and the desk critiques tradition of architectural practice. In this sense, the study aims to create a base for a provision for the future of architectural education with student-centered assessments. The research comparatively evaluates the effects of distance education and formal education on architectural studio practices through course evaluation questionnaires applied to students and student comments. In this study, the questionnaires and comments filled by approximately a total of 120 students for each term between 2018-2022 within the Department of Architecture of ABU were analyzed. To determine the points where students get the most efficiency and feel inefficient; Both positive and negative outcomes were observed, including difficulties with the concepts of proportion and scale, the benefit of being able to view other students' projects online, and the chance to continue learning additional modeling and drawing software until graduation. This example shows how hybrid education for the architectural design studio can be evaluated when weighing the benefits and drawbacks of online learning versus face-to-face teaching.

Keywords

• distance education
• Architectural design studio
• Education
• ISO quality
• Distance education.

References

1. Ahmad, L, Sosa, M, Musfy, K (2020) Interior design teaching methodology during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Interiority 3(2): 163–184.
2. Akyıldız, E. C. (2020), Bir Öğrenme Ortamı Olarak Tasarım Stüdyosu: Maltepe Üniversitesi Tasarım Stüdyosu 1 Deneyimi, The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication – TOJDAC, ISSN: 2146-5193, October 2020 Volume 10 Issue 4, p.389-407 .
3. Anthony, K. H., (2012) “Studio Culture and Student Life", Architecture School Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America, MIT Press, 396-401.
4. Aslan, D. (2016),Mimari Stüdyo Kültürü ve Pratik Üzerine, Ege Mimarlık ,s.12-14.
5. Aydın, F. (2013). İç Denetim Birimi Yöneticilerinin Kalite Güvence Ve Geliştirme Programındaki Rolü. Denetişim, (12), 21-24.
6. Aydınlı, S. (2015), Tasarım Eğitiminde Yapılandırıcı Paradigma: ‘Öğrenmeyi Öğrenme, Tasarım+Kuram, Sayı 20.
7. Ayvaz, B., Kuşakçı, A. O., & Borat, O. (2016). Kalite güvencesi ve akreditasyon süreçleri. Yeni Türkiye, 88, 1-8.
8. Balamir, A.K.,(1985) Mimarlık Söyleminin Değişimi ve Eğitim Programları, Mimarlık, 218 23/8, s.9-15.

9. Bulduklu, Yasin (2019) Eleştirel Çalışmalarda Nitel Araştırma Yöntemi Olarak Gömülü Teori, Kritik İletişim Çalışmaları Dergisi
10. Cohen, Louis; Manion, Lawrence; Morrison, Keith (2007). Research Methods in Education, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2007.
11. Collier, David (1993), The comparative Method political science: The state of the discipline II. Washington DC. American political science Association.
12. Celik, C.; Arabacıoğlu B. (2022), İç Mimarlık Eğitimi Stüdyo Derslerinin Gelişimi Işığında Ölçekler Arası Tasarım Yaklaşımı Üzerine Güncel Bir Çalışma, bāb Journal of FSMVU Faculty of Architecture and Design, Cilt 3, Sayı 2, 190 – 208.
13. Eceoğlu, A. (2012). Teknolojik Gelişmelerin Mimarlık Mesleğine Yansımalari Ve Simülasyon Programları'nın Mekan Tasarımına Etkisi . Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 2 (2), 89-93.
14. Elrawy, S. ., ve Abouelmagd, D. . (2021). Architectural and Urban Education in Egypt in the Post Covid-19 Pandemic. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 10(2), 91. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2021.v10n2p91
15. Falkingham, L.T.; Reeves, R. (1998) Context Analysıs - A Technıque For Analysing Research in a Field, Applied To Literature On The Management Of R&D At The Sectıon Level Seientometrics, and Akaddmiai Kiad6, Budapest Vol. 42, No. 2 (1998) 97-120
16. Geyyas Gören, L. F. ve Şenyiğit, Ö. (2021). Covid-19 Salgını Sürecinde Mimarlık Eğitiminin Çevrimiçi/Uzaktan Sürdürülmesine Farklı Yaklaşımlar. 8. Uluslararası Mühendislik Mimarlık ve Tasarım Kongresi. 399-406.
17. Goldschmidt, G.; Hochman, H.; Dafni,I. ( 2010), The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (2010), 24, 285–302.
18. Hesapçıoğlu, M. (2006), Eğitim Kurumlarında Kalite Olgusu Ve Kalite Güvence Sistemleri, M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Yıl: 2006, Sayı 23, Sayfa: 143 160 .
19. Ilgar, M. Z., Ilgar, S. C. (2013). Nitel bir araştırma deseni olarak gömülü teori (temellendirilmiş kuram). İZÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(3), 197-247.
20. Kahvecioğlu, N. P., (2007), Architectural design studio organization and creativity, AZ, ITU A|Z. VOL: 4 NO: 2, 6-26 2007-2
21. Kamu İç Denetim Kalite Güvence ve Geliştirme Rehberi. (2016).
22. Kararmaz, Ö.; Ciravoğlu,A. (2017), Erken Dönem Mimari Tasarım Stüdyolarına Deneyim Tabanlı Yaklaşımların Bütünleştirilmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Megaron, 2017;12(3):409-419.
23. Kılınç, C., Balçık, S., Karaoğlu, G. ve Yamaçlı, R. (2021). Mimarlık Stüdyo Eğitiminde COVID-19 Süreci: ‘Temassız Deneyimler’. Modular Journal, (4)1, 62-70.
24. Ledewitz, S., (1985). “Models of design in studio teaching”, Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), s.2-8.
25. Oktay H. E., Mutlu Danacı, H., Unvan M., Kavas K. R. ve Bakır İ. (2021). Mimarlık eğitiminde sanal eğitim denemeleri ve değerlendirme süreci. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 25, 311-324. doi: 10.14689/enad.25.13
26. Uçar, S. ve Sağsöz, A. (2022). Uzaktan ve yüz yüze eğitimin stüdyo derslerine etkisi: Antalya Bilim Üniversitesi güzel sanatlar ve mimarlık fakültesi örneği. Turkish Studies, 17(6), 1617-1637. https://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.63227
27. Uluoğlu, B, (2000), Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques, Design Studies, Vol. 21 P. 33-58.
28. Uluoğlu, B.(1988) Tasarım Stüsyosuna Bir Bakış, Planlama, 88/2,s. 21-25.
29. Us, F. (2021). Mimarlikta Uzaktan Eğitim: Mimari Tasarim Stüdyosunda Acil Durum Uzaktan Eğitimi Ve Bir Örnek Üzerinden Değerlendirilmesi. The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication, 11 (3), 886-897.
30. Yorke, J.; Vidovich, L.; (2016), Learning Standards and the Assessment of Quality in Higher Education: Contested Policy Trajectories Policy Implications of Research in Education 7 Springer
31. Yurtsever, B.; Polatoğlu, Ç. (2020), Mimari Tasarım Eğitiminde “Aktif Stüdyo” Deneyimleri, Megaron, 15(3)412-423.
32. Yök kamu iç denetim kalite ve güvence geliştirme mevzuatı. (2011). https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2011/10/20111015-5.htm