Tasarım Fakültelerinde Çevrimiçi Eğitim: Stüdyo Deneyiminin Artıları ve Eksileri

Abstract

Yerel ve küresel krizler (pandemi, deprem vb.) eğitim dahil birçok alanda değişikliklere neden olmuştur. Bu çalışma, Mimarlık Fakültesi'ndeki “stüdyo tabanlı” uygulamalı derslere odaklanmakta ve çevrimiçi ve yüz yüze eğitim modellerinin karşılaştırmalı bir analizini sunmaktadır. Karma yöntem kullanılarak yapılan bu çalışmada, Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi'nin Şehir ve Bölge Planlama, Mimarlık ve Peyzaj Mimarlığı bölümlerinden öğrencilerin katılımıyla ampirik bir anket gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada, çevrimiçi eğitim sırasında öğrencilerin hem pratik hem de teorik dersler bağlamındaki deneyimlerini değerlendirmek ve ANOVA testi kullanarak farklı ders yapıları arasındaki memnuniyet düzeylerini istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırmak amaçlanmıştır. Bulgular arasında, teknik ekipman/yazılım, stüdyo ortamı, öğrenciler arasındaki iletişim, stüdyo ortamında uygulama yoluyla öğrenme ve çevrimiçi eğitimde aktif çizim için kullanılan bazı uygulamaların uygunsuzluğu gibi çeşitli alanlardaki eksiklikler öne çıkmaktadır. Bir diğer önemli sonuç ise ders türleri arasında değişen memnuniyet düzeyleridir. Çevrimiçi eğitim, teorik dersler için nispeten etkili olarak algılanırken, uygulama odaklı stüdyo derslerinde önemli bir memnuniyetsizliğe yol açmıştır. Bu çalışma, uygulama temelli derslerde çevrimiçi eğitimin nasıl algılandığını ve mevcut sistemde ne gibi iyileştirmeler yapılabileceğini değerlendirerek gelecekteki çevrimiçi eğitim süreçlerine katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Online Eğitim
• Planlama ve Tasarım
• Öğrenci Deneyimi
• Stüdyo Eğitimi

Online Education in Design Faculties: Pros-Cons in Studio Experience

Abstract

Local and global crises (pandemic, earthquake, etc.) have caused changes in many areas, including education. This study focuses on “studio-based” practical courses at the Faculty of Architecture and presents a comparative analysis of online and face-to-face education models. Using mixed methods, this study conducted an empirical survey with the participation of students from the Urban and Regional Planning, Architecture, and Landscape Architecture departments at Bursa Technical University. The aim is to evaluate students' experiences in both practical and theoretical contexts during online education and to statistically compare satisfaction levels between different course structures using the ANOVA test. Among the findings, deficiencies in various areas stand out, such as technical equipment/software, studio environment, communication between students, learning through application in the studio environment, and the unsuitability of some applications used for active drawing in online education. Another important outcome is the varying levels of satisfaction between course types. While online education is perceived as relatively effective for theoretical instruction, it has led to significant dissatisfaction in practice-oriented studio courses. This study aims to contribute to future online education processes by evaluating how online education is perceived in practice-based courses and what improvements can be made to the current system.

Keywords

• Online Education
• Planning and Design
• Student Experience
• Studio Education

References

1. Alnusairat, S., Al Maani, D., & Al-Jokhadar, A. (2021). Architecture students’ satisfaction with and perceptions of online design studios during COVID-19 lockdown: The case of Jordan universities. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 15(1), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-09-2020-0195
2. Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
3. Asfour, O. S., & Alkharoubi, A. M. (2023). Challenges and opportunities in online education in architecture: Lessons learned for post-pandemic education. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 14(9), 102131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102131
4. Baturay, M. H., & Yukselturk, E. (2015). The role of online education preferences on students’ achievement. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.47810
5. Bawaneh, A. K. (2021). The satisfaction level of undergraduate science students toward using e-learning and virtual classes in exceptional conditions: COVID-19 crisis. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 22(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.849882
6. Bektaş Ekici, B., Akyıldız, N. A., Karabatak, S., & Alanoğlu, M. (2023). Architecture students’ attitudes toward emergency online education and elements affecting their success in design studios: A sample from Turkey. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication.
7. Ceylan, S., Şahin, P., Seçmen, S., Somer, M. E., & Süher, K. H. (2020). An evaluation of online architectural design studios during COVID-19 outbreak. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research.
8. Crowther, F., Andrews, D., & Conway, J. M. (2013). Schoolwide pedagogy: Vibrant new meaning for teachers and principals. Hawker Brownlow Education.

9. Demirbaş, O. O., & Demirkan, H. (2007). Learning styles of design students and the relationship of academic performance and gender in design education. Learning and Instruction, 17(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.02.007
10. Doğan Dervişoğlu, C., & Yılmaz, E. (2023). Examining the effect of learning environment on student behaviour through comparison of face-to-face and online design studio. Megaron, 18(2), 142–157.
11. Dreamson, N. (2020). Online design education: Meta-connective pedagogy. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(3), 483–497.
12. Dutton, T. A. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 16–25.
13. Fleischmann, K. (2018). Hype or help? Technology-enhanced learning in the design classroom: An experiment in online design collaboration. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 11(1), 331–341.
14. Fleischmann, K. (2020). The online pandemic in design courses: Design higher education in digital isolation. https://doi.org/10.51432/978-1-8381524-0-6_1
15. George, B. H. (2017). Barriers to the adoption of online design education within collegiate landscape architecture programmes in North America. Landscape Review, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.34900/lr.v17i1.1006
16. Grant, J., & Manuel, P. (1995). Using a peer resource learning model in planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501500104
17. Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A review of the literature. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1).
18. Iranmanesh, A., & Onur, Z. (2021). Mandatory virtual design studio for all: Exploring the transformations of architectural education amidst the global pandemic. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40(1), 251–267.
19. Lee, Y. C. (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Information Review, 30(5), 517–541.
20. Lewis, R. K. (2013). Architect: A candid guide to the profession. MIT Press.
21. Newman, G., et al. (2018). Online learning in landscape architecture: Assessing issues, preferences, and student needs in design-related online education. Landscape Journal, 37(2), 41–63.
22. Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (2000). Architectural education and the profession. In Changing architectural education: Towards a new profession (pp. 1–22). E & FN Spon.
23. Parnell, S. (2001). Ripple on the pond: Libraries and change in online education (Doctoral dissertation). Taylor Graham.
24. Rosa, C., & Ferreira, J. (2023). The distant studio: A survey of design students’ experience with online educational formats. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication.
25. Rowe, K. (2006). Effective teaching practices for students with and without learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(3), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404150609546813
26. Sakarya, K. (2021). Pandemi sürecinde uzaktan eğitim ile yürütülen teknik resim dersine dair bir değerlendirme: Çukurova Üniversitesi iç mimarlık bölümü örneği. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (25), 282–290.
27. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Huotilainen, M., Mäkelä, M., Groth, C., & Hakkarainen, K. (2016). How can neuroscience help understand design and craft activity? FormAkademisk, 9(1).
28. Şekerci, Y., Danacı, H. M., & Elinç, Z. K. (2021). Uzaktan eğitimin uygulamalı derslerde sürdürülebilirliği: Mimarlık bölümleri örneği. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(1), 54–68.
29. Schön, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1984.10758345
30. Simpson, D. D. (2002). A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22(4), 171–182.
31. Wagner, M., & Gansemer-Topf, A. (2005). Learning by teaching others: A qualitative study exploring the benefits of peer teaching. Landscape Journal, 24(2), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.24.2.198
32. Wang, T. (2010). A new paradigm for design studio education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01647.x
33. Wendler, W. V., & Rogers, J. S. (1995). The design life space: Verbal communication in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 319–336.