Adapting to the Living Space in the First Interior Design Studio

Year 2021, , 97 - 106, 20.07.2021

Pınar Sezginalp , Selin Ust

https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.929495

Abstract

The case study will examine online and face-to-face learning experiences of the two different groups of students who have never been enrolled in an interior design studio, where they see their classmates and encounter an “interior architecture” project as a problem for the first time. As the “living spaces” were the main problematic of this design studio, the interaction, the time management in design development, means of representation, inputs and outputs of the studio, perception of space and scale were the main parameters that differed and varied within separate learning environments, and will be read through the feedback of the students.

Keywords

In-studio design education, Online design education, Interior architecture studio education, Living space design

References

• Bayraktaroğlu S., (2020). Actors of rural innovation: Bamboo craft initiatives from Northeast India. In L. S. Andersen (Eds.), Rural Areas: An Overview (pp.145-191). New York: NOVA Science Publishers Inc.
• Broadfoot, O. & Bennett, R., (2003). Design Studios: Online? Comparing Traditional Face-to-face Design Studio Education with Modern Internet-based Design Studios. Apple University Consortium Academic and Developers Conference Proceedings. Sydney, 9-21.
• Cuff, D., (1991). Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Jara, C., (1995). Adolf Loos’s “Raumplan” Theory, Journal of Architectural education (1984- ) 48(3), 185-201
• Kvan, T., (2001) The Pedagogy of Virtual Design Studios. Automation in Construction, 10(3), 345-354.
• Porteous, D., & Smith, S., (2001). Domicide: The Global Destruction of Home. Canada: McGill-Queen's University.
• Richardson, J. C., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Ice, P., Swan, K. P., & Garrison, D. R., (2012). Using the community of inquiry framework to inform effective instructional design. In L. Moller, J. B. Huett (Eds.), The next generation of distance education (pp. 97-125). Springer, Boston, MA.
• Salama, A. M., (2015). New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio. North Carolina, Tailored Text and Unlimited Potential Publishing.
• Saghafi, M., Franz, J., & Crowther, P., (2012). Perceptions of physical versus virtual design studio education. Archnet-IJAR, 6(1), 6-22.
• Schön, D. A., (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications.
• Schön, D. A. & Wiggins, G., (1992). Kinds of Seeing and Their Functions in Designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156.
• Swan, K., & Shih, L., (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous learning networks, 9(3), 115–136.
• Tu, C., & McIsaac, M., (2002). The Relationship Of Social Presence And Interaction in Online Classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.
• Ust, S., (2021). Emergency Remote Teaching in Interior Architecture: A Necessary Shift. In K. Enomoto, R. Warner & C. Nygaard (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Innovations in Higher Education (pp.109-127). Oxfordshire: Libri Publishing.
• Waks, L. J., (2001). Donald Schon’s philosophy of design and design education, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Vol. 11(1), 37–51.