Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi rehberliğinde mimari temel tasarım stüdyosu için bir program önerisi

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 4, 379 - 409, 31.10.2024

Gülçe Sözen , Arzu Özen Yavuz

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.1495965

Abstract

Makale, mimari temel tasarım eğitimini geleneksel yöntemlerden uzaklaştırarak eğitim bilimleri disiplini ve öğrenme modelleri çerçevesinde ele alır. Eğitimin çok katmanlı yapısı, Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi rehberliğinde yeni bir öğrenme alanına dönüşür ve mimari temel tasarım stüdyosu için bir program önerir. Taksonomi, mimarlık ve tasarımın disiplinlerarası yapısının eğitim sürecindeki yansımalarını ve etkinliğini keşfetmeyi ve temel tasarım eğitimi bağlamında araçsallaştırılarak kullanılmasını sağlar. Program önerisi, disiplinlerarası bir stüdyo programı örneği ile esnek bir müfredat taslağı sunar. Bu çalışma kapsamında oluşturulan deneme; farklı ekol, okul ve değerler için uygun şekilde düzenlenebilir. Çalışma, disiplinlerarası niteliği ve Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi’ni kullanarak yeni bir söylem geliştirmesi açısından önemlidir. Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi’nin stüdyoda bir yöntem olarak kullanılması, metodolojide bir paradigma değişimine yol açmıştır.

Keywords

Disiplinler arası yaklaşım, Mimari temel tasarım eğitimi, Temel tasarım stüdyosu, Yenilenmiş Bloom Taksonomisi

Proposing a course schedule for architectural basic design studio guided by Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy

Abstract

The article moves away from the traditional architectural basic design education methods and approaches it within the framework of the discipline of educational sciences and learning models. The multi-layered education structure transforms into a new learning field under the guidance of Bloom's Revised Taxonomy, which proposes a course schedule for the architectural basic design studio. Taxonomy allowed us to discover the reflections and effectiveness of the interdisciplinary structure of architecture and design in the educational process and to be instrumentalized and used in the context of basic design education. The course schedule proposal presents a flexible schedule outline with the example of an interdisciplinary studio schedule. The trial created within the scope of this study can be appropriately organized for different Ecoles, schools, and values. The paper is significant for its interdisciplinary nature and develops a new discourse using Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. Using Bloom's Revised Taxonomy as a method in the studio has led to a paradigm shift in methodology.

Keywords

Architectural basic design education, Basic design studio, Bloom, Interdisciplinary approach

References

• Acar, A., Soysal Acar, S. A. & Unver, E. (2021). Mimarlık bölümü birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin kendi problem çözme becerilerine dair algılarının dikkat ve görsel-mekânsal becerileriyle ilişkisi üzerine bir araştırma [A research on the relationship between problem-solving appraisal, attention, and visuospatial skills of first-year architecture students], Megaron, 16(2), 212-222. https://doi.org/10.14744/MEGARON.2021.98623
• Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
• Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Aydinli, S. (2015). Tasarım eğitiminde yapılandırıcı paradigma: ‘öğrenmeyi öğrenme’ [Constructivist paradigm in design education: 'learning to learn'], Tasarım+Kuram, 20, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.23835/tasarimkuram.239579
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook: the cognitive domain. David McKay Company, Inc.
• Bloom, B. S. (1971). Affective consequences of school achievement. In J. H. Block (Ed.) Mastery learning: theory and practice (pp. 13-28). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
• Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. Mc-Graw Hill.
• Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Harvard University Press.
• Bryant, M. (2021). Learning spatial design through interdisciplinary collaboration. Land, 10(7), 689. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070689
• Cakmakli, A. B., Gursel Dino, İ, Komez Daglioglu, E., Pinar, E. & Yoncaci Arslan, P. (2023). The diagonal axis from VERB to VOID: interdisciplinarity in basic design studio education. Archnet-IJAR, 17(4), 774-792. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-12-2021-0337
• Caner Yuksel, C. & Dinc Uyaroglu, İ. (2021). Experiential learning in basic design studio: Body, space and the design process. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40(3), 508-525. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12364
• Colomina, B., Galán, I. G., Kotsioris, E. & Meister, A. (2022). Radical pedagogies. The MIT Press.
• Conrads, U. (2019). 20. yüzyıl mimarisinde program ve manifestolar [Programs and manifestoes on 20th-century architecture]. Şevki Vanlı Mimarlık Vakfı Yayınları.
• Dewey, J. (1887). Psychology. Harper & Brothers.
• Ertas, A., Maxwell, T., Rainey, V. P. & Tanik, M. M. (2003). Transformation of higher education: the transdisciplinary approach in engineering. IEEE Transactions on Education, 4(2), 289-295. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2002.808232
• Frederick, M. (2007). 101 things I learned in architecture school. The MIT Press.
• Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
• Goldschmidt, G. (2003). Expert knowledge or creative spark? Predicaments in design education. In N. Cross, & E. Edmonds (Eds), Proceedings of expertise in design / design thinking research symposium 6 (pp.221-233). University of Technology.
• Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's “learning for mastery”. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8-31. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-704
• Hamza, T. S. & Hassan, D. K. (2015). Consequential creativity: student competency and lateral thinking incorporation in architectural education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26, 587-612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9321-4
• Hatipoglu, S. C., Kamaoglu, M., Sensoy, G. & Inceoglu, M. (2023). Body, dance and abstraction for spatial and structural comprehension in the first year of design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34, 19-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09821-1
• Hillier, B. & Leaman, A. (1972). A new approach to architectural research. RIBA Journal, 79(12), 517-521.
• Ketizmen, G. (2024). The relationship between learning process, personality traits, and motivational factors of senior architecture students. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 39(4), 2525-2537.
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
• Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. Freeman and Co.
• McLain, M. (2022). Towards a signature pedagogy for design and technology education: a literature review. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 1629-1648. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09667-5
• Onur, D. (2013). Mimarlık eğitiminde tasarım stüdyoları [Design studios in architectural education]. In M. Erbay, T. Zorlu, B. Akgül, D. Onur & A. Aras, (Eds.), Sanat ve mimarlık arakesitinde tasarım stüdyoları/resimden mekâna: Kandinsky (pp. 11-28). Nobel.
• Onur, D. & Zorlu, T. (2017). Tasarım stüdyolarında uygulanan eğitim metotları ve yaratıcılık ilişkisi [Education methods applied in design studios and creativity], The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication - TOJDAC, 7(4), 542-555. https://doi.org/10.7456/10704100/002
• Orbey, B. & Sarioglu Erdogdu, G. P. (2021). Design process re-visited in the first year design studio: between intuition and reasoning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 771-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09573-2
• Oymen Gur, S. (2000). Mimarlıkta temel eğitim dersi uygulaması [Basic education course practice in architecture], Mimarlık, 293, 25-34.
• Ozmen, H. (2004). Fen öğretiminde öğrenme teorileri ve teknoloji destekli yapılandırmacı (constructivist) öğrenme [Learning theories in science teaching and technology supported constructivist learning]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 3(1), 100-111.
• Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge.
• Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. Routledge.
• Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660020306
• Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Charles E. Merrill.
• Salama A. M. & Burton L. O. (2022). Defying a legacy or an evolving process? A post-pandemic architectural design pedagogy. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Urban Design and Planning, 175(1), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.1680/jurdp.21.00023
• Samaniego, M., Usca, N., Salguero, J. & Quevedo, W. (2024). Creative thinking in art and design education: a systematic review. Education Sciences, 14, 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020192
• Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio/ an exploration of its traditions and potentials. RIBA Publications.
• Sharunova, A., Wang, Y., Kowalski, M. & Qureshi, A. J. (2022) Applying Bloom’s taxonomy in transdisciplinary engineering design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 987-999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09621-x
• Stead, N., Gusheh, M & Rodwell, J. (2022) Well-being in architectural education: theory-building, reflexive methodology, and the ‘hidden curriculum’. Journal of Architectural Education, 76(1), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.2022.2017699
• Tuncok Sariberberoglu, M. (2022). An online basic design studio experience: from point to space. Journal of Design Studio, 4(2), 227-235. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1150261
• Turkun Dostoglu, N. (2000). Mimarlık eğitiminde ilk yılın önemi [The importance of the first year in architectural education], Mimarlık, 293, 56-58.
• Vilaplana de Miguel, P. (2022). “Pedagogías Radicales”, una investigación sobre la enseñanza de la arquitectura [Radical Pedagogies”, an inquiry onto architectural education]. Cuadernos de Proyectos Arquitectónicos, 12, 104-105. https://doi.org/10.20868/cpa.2022.12.4958
• Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative activity. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.