Eğitim Modeli Olarak Bauhaus: Kalıcı Tasarım ve Güçlü Bilgi

Abstract

Bauhaus sanat, tasarım ve mimarlık okulunun etkisi, kapanışından bir asır sonra bile hâlâ güncelliğini korumaktadır. Okulun öğrenme teorisi bir bakıma belirsiz olsa da, okulun hem konutsal ve ticari tasarımlara ilham vermeye devam ettiği hem de farklı ülkelerdeki kurumlarda disiplinler arası öğrenmeyi teşvik ettiği konusunda önemli bir fikir birliği bulunmaktadır. Okulun uzun soluklu etkisi, geliştirdiği eğitim modelinde özgün bir şeylerin olduğunu göstermektedir; bu model, öğrencilerin işlevsellik ile yaratıcılığı bir araya getiren tasarımlar üretmelerini sağlamıştır. Bu makalede, Bauhaus’un pedagojik yaklaşımlarını yorumlamak amacıyla güçlü bir bilgi çerçevesi kullanılmaktadır. Özellikle Walter Gropius’a ve tüm öğrencilerin okula kabul edilmeden önce tamamladıkları hazırlık kursuna (Vorkurs) odaklanılmaktadır. Yapılan çalışmada, Bauhaus tasarımlarının kalıcı etkisinin; zanaat ve uygulama bilgisinin, genelleştirilebilir bilgi ile eylem arasında kurulan bağdan kaynaklandığı ortaya konulmaktadır. Güncel ve tarihsel literatür incelenerek; bu öğrenme modelinin bilgi çeşitliliğini, soyutlamayı, öğrenmenin organizasyonunu ve analojik akıl yürütmenin gelişimini nasıl içerdiği ve nasıl özgürleştirici bir potansiyele sahip olduğu araştırılmaktadır. Dolayısıyla, güçlü bir bilgi çerçevesi kullanılarak gerçekleştirilen bu analiz ile genelleştirilebilir niteliklere sahip ve öğrenmeyi desteklemeyi amaçlayan müfredat tasarımına ilişkin önemli içgörüler sunulmaktadır.

Keywords

• analojik akıl yürütme
• Bauhaus
• yeterlilik
• müfredat tasarımı
• güçlü bilgi

The Bauhaus as Education Model: Enduring Design and Powerful Knowledge

Abstract

The influence of the Bauhaus art, design, and architecture school is still relevant a century after it was closed down. Although its theory of learning is somewhat elusive there is significant agreement that the school continues to inspire domestic and commercial design, as well as stimulating interdisciplinary learning in institutions across a variety of national contexts. The longstanding influence of the school suggests that there was something special about the model of education that it developed; a model that enabled its students to generate designs that married functionality and creativity. In this paper we use a powerful knowledge framework to interpret the Bauhaus pedagogic concept, paying particular attention to Walter Gropius and the preliminary course (Vorkurs) that all students completed prior to acceptance into the school. Our interpretation suggests that the enduring impact of the designs generated by the Bauhäusler is a feature of how the Bauhaus programme linked craft and practice knowledge, generalisable knowledge, and action. Reviewing contemporary and historical literature we explore how this learning model incorporates knowledge range and abstraction, the organisation of learning, the development of analogical reasoning, and has a liberating potential. Our analysis of the Bauhaus using a powerful knowledge framework therefore gives important insight into the design of curriculum which aim to support learning with generalisable qualities.

Keywords

• analogical reasoning
• Bauhaus
• competence
• curriculum design
• powerful knowledge

References

1. Altunok, N. (2022). Discovering new potentials of Bauhaus-invented: “Vorkurs”. 2nd Architectural Episodes International Symposium Proceedings içinde (ss. 294–308). İstanbul Kültür University.
2. Ascher, B. E. (2015). The Bauhaus: Case study experiments in education. Architectural Design, 85(2), 30–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1873
3. Bakker, A., Shvarts, A., & Abrahamson, D. (2019). Generativity in design research: The case of developing a genre of action-based mathematics learning activities. U. T. Jankvist, M. Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME11) içinde. Freudenthal Group.
4. Bauhaus-Archiv, Museum für Gestaltung. (2023). 1919–1933. Erişim tarihi: 23 Şubat 2024, https://www.bauhaus.de/en/das_bauhaus/48_1919_1933/
5. Bertram, C. (2019), What is powerful knowledge in school history? Learning from the South African and Rwandan school curriculum documents. The Curriculum Journal, 30, 125-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1557536
6. Bittner, R. (2019). Towards a tangible pedagogy—Dimensions of tactility at the Bauhaus. Bauhaus Imaginista, 1.
7. Boreham, N., Fischer, M., & Samurçay, R. (2002). Work process knowledge. Routledge.
8. Burns, R. (2018). Applying the ‘powerful knowledge’ principle to curriculum development in disadvantaged contexts. Impact: Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching, (4), 10–12.

9. Carrai, R. (2022) The materialisation of Bauhaus in IKEA's democratic design. T. Brejzek, L. Wallen & R. Hinkel (Eds) Bauhaus × IKEA: Legacies of Modernism içinde. Uro Publications.
10. Cross, A. (1983). The educational background to the Bauhaus. Design Studies, 4(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(83)90007-8
11. Davis, R. A. (1936). Learning: Its nature, acquisition, and retention. Educational psychology: Prentice-Hall psychology series içinde (ss. 297–324). Prentice-Hall.
12. Designlab. (2016). Bauhaus school: Five lessons for today's designers. Erişim tarihi: 05 Eylül 2023, https://designlab.com/blog/bauhaus-school-five-lessons-for-todays-designers/
13. Díaz, E. (2023). One hundred years of revolutionary experiments in art education. Art Journal, 82(2), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00043249.2023.2239116
14. Durkheim, E. (2001). The elementary forms of religious life. Oxford University Press.
15. Entwistle, H. (2009). Antonio Gramsci: Conservative schooling for radical politics (1. baskı). Routledge.
16. Filliettaz, L., de Saint-Georges, I., & Duc, B. (2010). Skiing, cheese fondue and Swiss watches: Analogical discourse in vocational training interactions. Vocations and Learning, 3, 117–140.
17. Ford, A. (2022). Why is ‘powerful knowledge’ failing to forge a path to the future of history education? History Education Research Journal, 19(1), Makale 3. https://doi.org/10.14324/HERJ.19.1.03
18. Gramsci, A. (1949). On education. Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith (Ed.), Selections from the prison notebooks içinde (ss. 24–43). International Publishers.
19. Gropius, W. (1955). Scope of total architecture. Collier Books.
20. Harland, T., & Wald, N. (2018). Curriculum, teaching and powerful knowledge. Higher Education, 76(4), 615–628. HighEduc (2018) 76:615-628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0228-8
21. Heller-Sahlgren, G., & Wennström, J. (2022). The fatal conceit: Swedish education after Nazism. Journal of Controversial Ideas, 2(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.35995/jci02010009
22. Henrekson, M., & Wennström, J. (2022). Two views of knowledge and teaching. M. Henrekson & J. Wennström (Ed.), Dumbing down: The crisis of quality and equity in a once-great school system—and how to reverse the trend içinde (ss. 81–93). Springer International Publishing.
23. James-Chakraborty, K. (2012). Beyond cold war interpretations: Shaping a new Bauhaus heritage. New German Critique, 39(2), 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1215/0094033X-1550836
24. Julius, C. (2015). Women of the Bauhaus. Blueprint, (365), 70–81.
25. Kim, H. (2022). Re-framing Anni Albers and Bauhaus. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 41(3), 414–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12423
26. La Coe, J. (2016). First impressions: Moholy-Nagy and the prototype in the curriculum. Shaping New Knowledges içinde (ss. 91–97). ACSA Press.
27. Le Masson, P., Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2016). Design theory at Bauhaus: Teaching “splitting” knowledge. Research in Engineering Design, 27(2), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2025.10045
28. Lerner, F. (2005). Foundations for design education: Continuing the Bauhaus Vorkurs vision. Studies in Art Education, 46(3), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2005.11650075
29. Maude, A. (2015). What is powerful knowledge and can it be found in the Australian geography curriculum? Geographical Education, 28, 18–26.
30. McPhail, G., & Rata, E. (2016). Comparing curriculum types: ‘Powerful Knowledge’ and ‘21st Century Learning’. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 51(1), 53–68.
31. Medina Warmburg, J. (2022). Re-reading Bauhaus histories: Appropriations and global perspectives. Journal of Design History, 35(3), 300–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdh/epab050
32. Michelson, E. (2004). On trust, desire and the sacred: A response to Johann Muller's “Reclaiming Knowledge”. Journal of Education, 32, 7–30.
33. Moholy-Nagy, L. (1937). The new Bauhaus and space relationship. American Architect and Architecture, 151, 23–28.
34. Moore, E. (2022). Taking a stand? Debating the Bauhaus and modernism—Impact! From Bauhaus to IKEA. Journal of Design History, 35(3), 320–321. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdh/epac010
35. Periton, D. (1996). The Bauhaus as cultural paradigm. The Journal of Architecture, 1(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/136023696374640
36. Pilat, S. Z. (2024). Unorthodox pedagogy: The American school approach. 112th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, Disruptors on the Edge içinde (ss. 530–536). ACSA Press.
37. Poon, S. T. F. (2019). From tubular steel to flat pack: A case study comparison between Bauhaus and IKEA innovation leadership in contemporary design. Human Factors and Ergonomics Journal, 4(1), 25–31.
38. Rawsthorn, A. (2013, 22 Mart). Female pioneers of the Bauhaus. The New York Times. Erişim tarihi: 16 Ekim 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/arts/25iht-design25.html
39. Ray, K. R. (2001). Bauhaus Hausfraus: Gender formation in design education. Journal of Architectural Education, 55(2), 73–80. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1162/104648801753199491
40. Soderstrom, N. C., & Bjork, R. A. (2015). Learning versus performance: An integrative review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 176–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000
41. Strohecker, C. (2019). Situating Machenhäuser. L. Forlano, M. W. Steenson, & M. Ananny (Ed.), Bauhaus futures içinde (ss. 55–68). The MIT Press.
42. Takayasu, K. (2017). Criticism of the Bauhaus concept in the Ulm School of design. The Second Asian Conference of Design History and Theory: Design Education beyond Boundaries, Tsuda University.
43. Thaler, M. (2019). Bauhaus products for our time. L. Forlano, M. W. Steenson, & M. Ananny (Ed.), Bauhaus futures içinde (ss. 171–186). The MIT Press.
44. Tóth, A., Molnár, G., & Kárpáti, A. (2021). Learning about colour—The legacy of the Bauhaus masters. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12338
45. Turner, F. (2019). What was the Bauhaus? And what can it teach us today? L. Forlano, M. W. Steenson, & M. Ananny (Ed.), Bauhaus futures içinde (ss. 25–42). The MIT Press.
46. Wheelahan, L. (2010). Competency-based training, powerful knowledge and the working class. K. Maton & R. Moore (Ed.), Social realism, knowledge and the sociology of education içinde (ss. 93–109). Continuum.
47. Wheelahan, L. (2015). Not just skills: What a focus on knowledge means for vocational education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(6), 750–762. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2015.1089942
48. Wheelahan, L. (2023). Realism and theorizing curriculum—The role of knowledge. R. J. Tierney, F. Rizvi, & K. Ercikan (Ed.), International encyclopedia of education içinde (4. baskı, ss. 85–95). Elsevier.
49. White-Hancock, L. (2023). Insights from Bauhaus innovation for education and workplaces in a post-pandemic world. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(1), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09729-2
50. Whitford, F. (1984). Bauhaus (1. baskı). Thames and Hudson Ltd.
51. Wick, R. (2000). Teaching at the Bauhaus. Hatje Cantz Verlag.
52. Wingler, H. M. (1969). The Bauhaus: Weimar, Dessau, Berlin, Chicago. MIT Press.
53. Yates, L., & Millar, V. (2016). ‘Powerful Knowledge’ curriculum theories and the case of physics. The Curriculum Journal, 27(3), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2016.1174141
54. Young, M. (2003). Durkheim, Vygotsky and the curriculum of the future. London Review of Education, 1(2), 99–107.
55. Young, M. (2007). Conceptualizing vocational knowledge. Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education içinde (ss. 137–150). Routledge.
56. Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.764505
57. Young, M. (2014). Powerful knowledge as a curriculum principle. M. Young, D. Lambert, C. Roberts, & M. Roberts (Ed.), Knowledge and the future school: Curriculum and social justice içinde (ss. 65–88). Bloomsbury Academic.
58. Young, M. (2020). From powerful knowledge to the powers of knowledge. C. Sealy (Ed.), researchED guide to education myths: An evidence-informed guide for teachers içinde (ss. 19–30). John Catt Educational.
59. Young, M., & Muller, J. (2013). On the powers of powerful knowledge. Review of Education, 1(3), 229–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3017