Türkiye’de Mimarlık Eğitiminin Çok Boyutlu Analizi: MİAK Akreditasyonu Temelli Bir İnceleme

Öz

Mimarlık eğitimi, tasarım odaklı yapısı ve disiplinlerarası içeriğiyle yükseköğretimde stratejik bir konuma sahiptir. Türkiye’de 1980’li yıllardan itibaren uygulanan yükseköğretim politikaları, mimarlık bölümlerinin sayısında önemli artışa yol açmış; bu durum, eğitimde hem nicel büyümeyi hem de kalite tartışmalarını beraberinde getirmiştir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’deki mimarlık bölümlerinin mevcut durumunu yapısal, kurumsal, bölgesel ve pedagojik boyutlarda incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında karma yöntem yaklaşımı benimsenmiş; nicel veriler (kuruluş yılı, fakülte yapılanması, coğrafi dağılım, akademik kadro, akreditasyon durumu) istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiş, ders içerikleri ise içerik analizi ve kelime frekansı yöntemleriyle değerlendirilmiştir. MİAK akreditasyonuna sahip devlet ve vakıf üniversitelerinin müfredatları dokuz ana kategori altında karşılaştırılmıştır. Bulgular, mimarlık eğitiminin her iki kurum türünde de tasarım odaklı bir çerçeveye sahip olduğunu, ancak vakıf üniversitelerinin esneklik ve çağdaş temalar açısından daha çeşitlendirilmiş programlar sunduğunu göstermektedir. Coğrafi dağılımda belirgin eşitsizlikler, düşük akreditasyon oranları ve akademik kadro farklılıkları öne çıkmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, çalışma mimarlık eğitiminin geliştirilmesi için kalite güvencesi, bölgesel denge, müfredat güncelleme ve akademik kadro politikalarına yönelik öneriler sunmakta; gelecekte küresel standartlarla uyumlu, sürdürülebilir ve yenilikçi bir mimarlık eğitimi vizyonunun inşasına zemin hazırlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Türkiye’de Mimarlık Eğitimi
• Müfredat Yapısı
• MİAK
• Akreditasyon
• Ders İçerikleri

A Multidimensional Analysis of Architectural Education in Türkiye: A Study Based on MİAK Accreditation

Öz

Architecture education occupies a strategic place in higher education owing to its design-oriented structure and interdisciplinary content. Since the 1980s, higher education policies in Türkiye have considerably increased the number of architecture departments, producing not only quantitative growth but also debates on educational quality. This study analyzes the current state of architecture departments in Türkiye with regard to structural, institutional, regional, and pedagogical aspects. A mixed-methods approach was employed: quantitative data such as year of establishment, faculty structure, geographical distribution, academic staff, and accreditation status were examined statistically, while curricular contents were analyzed through content analysis and word frequency methods. Additionally, the curricula of state and foundation universities accredited by MİAK were compared across nine categories. Findings indicate that both types of institutions maintain a design-oriented framework; however, foundation universities provide more flexible and diversified programs addressing contemporary themes. Prominent findings include geographical inequalities, low accreditation rates, and disparities in academic staff composition. Based on these results, the study offers recommendations for enhancing quality assurance, achieving regional balance, updating curricula, and developing academic staff policies. TürkiyeThese insights contribute to a globally compatible, sustainable, and innovative vision of architecture education in Türkiye that is responsive to evolving academic and professional demands.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Architectural Education in Türkiye
• Curriculum Structure
• MİAK
• Accreditation
• Course Content

Kaynakça

1. Andrews, M. W. (2023). Shining light: A case study analysis of a tutor training programme for architect-educators at the University of East London, 1996–c.2002. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(5), 948–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2224299
2. Architects Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA). (2019). National standard of competency for architects. https://www.aaca.org.au/ (12.06.2024)
3. Aydınlı, S. (2015). Tasarım eğitiminde yapılandırıcı paradigma: “Öğrenmeyi öğrenme.” Tasarım+ Kuram, 11(20), 1-18.
4. Aydınlı, S., & Kürtüncü, B. (2014). Paralaks oda: “Öğrenmeyi öğrenme” ortamı olarak stüdyo. In S. Aydınlı & B. Kürtüncü (Eds.), Paralaks Oda (pp. 10-31). Yapı Endüstri Merkezi.
5. Baydar, G. (2012). Osmanlı-Türk mimarlarında meslekleşme. TMMOB.
6. Boarin, P., & Martinez-Molina, A. (2022). Integration of environmental sustainability considerations within architectural programmes in higher education: A review of teaching and implementation approaches. Journal of Cleaner Production, 342, 130989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130989
7. Boarin, P., Martinez-Molina, A., & Juan-Ferruses, I. (2020). Understanding students’ perception of sustainability in architecture education: A comparison among universities in three different continents. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119237
8. Boge, P., & Sullivan, J. (2004). Curricular weaving. In 92nd ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings (pp. 496–500), University of South Florida.

9. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
10. Buhamdan, S., Alwisy, A., & Bouferguene, A. (2021). Generative systems in the architecture, engineering and construction industry: A systematic review and analysis. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 19(3), 226-249.
11. Caetano, I., & Leitão, A. (2020). Architecture meets computation: An overview of the evolution of computational design approaches in architecture. Architectural Science Review, 63(2), 165-174.
12. Casakin, H., & Wodehouse, A. (2021). A systematic review of design creativity in the architectural design studio. Buildings, 11(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11010031
13. Ceylan, S., Şahin, P., Seçmen, S., Somer, M. E., & Süher, H. K. (2024). The contribution of digital tools to architectural design studio: A case study. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 15(7), 102795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2024.102795
14. Corazzo, J. (2019). Materialising the studio: A systematic review of the role of the material space of the studio in art, design and architecture education. The Design Journal, 22(sup1), 1249-1265.
15. Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), 18-28.
16. D’Souza, N. (2007). Design intelligences: A case for multiple intelligences in architectural design. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 1(2), 15-34.
17. Delahaye, B. (2004). Human resource development: Adult learning and knowledge management. John Wiley & Sons.
18. Dural, M. (2022). Mimarlık eğitiminde uzamsal yetenek sorunsalı [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü].
19. European Commission. (2010). The Bologna process and architecture education.
20. Forty, A. (2000). Words and buildings: A vocabulary of modern architecture (Vol. 268). Thames & Hudson.
21. Fox-Wolfgramm, S. J. (1997). Towards developing a methodology for doing qualitative research: The dynamic-comparative case study method. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 439-455.
22. Frampton, K. (1992). Modern architecture: A critical history. Thames & Hudson.
23. Frank, A., & Silver, C. (2017). Teaching urban and regional planning. Edward Elgar.
24. Ghonim, M., & Eweda, N. (2019). Instructors’ perspectives on the pedagogy of architectural graduation projects: A qualitative study. Frontiers of Architectural Research, 8(3), 415-427.
25. Gökarslan, A. B., & Tuncer, H. (2023). Conservation courses effects on architecture students’ conservation awareness: Analyses of Isparta and Burdur houses. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 8(1), 370-384.
26. Guy, S., & Farmer, G. (2001). Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: The place of technology. Journal of Architectural Education, 54(3), 140-148.
27. Ibrahim, A. F., Attia, A. S., Asma’M, B., & Ali, H. H. (2021). Evaluation of the online teaching of architectural design and basic design courses: Case study of the College of Architecture at JUST, Jordan. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(2), 2345-2353.
28. Jokilehto, J. (2017). A history of architectural conservation. Routledge.
29. Kara, B. (2017). Türkiye’deki mimarlık okullarında mimari proje eğitiminin karşılaştırmalı analizi [Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü].
30. Kastner, F., & Langenberg, S. (2023). Transition in architecture education? Exploring socio-technical factors of curricular changes for a sustainable built environment. Sustainability, 15(22), 15949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215949
31. Kwok, R. (2001). Education in urban planning. Habitat International, 25(1), 91-101.
32. Lyu, Y., Chi, T., & Zheng, X. (2024). Digital transformation of design education in Chinese universities: Trends, challenges, and opportunities. SHS Web of Conferences, 181, 04037. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202418104037
33. Mallgrave, H. F. (2010). The architect’s brain: Neuroscience, creativity, and architecture. Wiley.
34. Martinez Quantrill, M. (Ed.). (2002). The architectural project. Texas A & M University Press.
35. MİAK (2025.). Mimarlık Akreditasyon Kurulu. MİAK. https://www.miak.org.tr/ (25.07.2025).
36. Mohammed, K. E., & Elias-Ozkan, S. T. (2019). Incorporating sustainability principles into architectural design education: Results of an experimental design studio. Journal of Green Building, 14(3), 143-158. https://doi.org/10.3992/1943-4618.14.3.143
37. Moscoso, C., Chamilothori, K., Wienold, J., Andersen, M., & Matusiak, B. (2022). Regional differences in the perception of daylit scenes across Europe using virtual reality. Part I: Effects of window size. Leukos, 18(3), 294-315.
38. Mostafa, M., & Mostafa, H. M. (2010). How do architects think? Learning styles and architectural education. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 4(2/3), 310-317.
39. Özcan, Ö. (2023). İTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi’nin kuruluş yılları ve mimarlık eğitimi (1928-1954). [Doktora tezi İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü].
40. Özdemir, E. E. (2013). Mimarlık eğitiminde tasarım sürecinin geliştirilmesi yönünde bir yöntem arayışı [Doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü].
41. Özdemir, H., Onal, G. K., & Ozturk, A. C. (2020). The role of informal structures in architectural design education. Icontech International Journal, 4(3), 11-29.
42. Özeren, Ö. (2023). Mimarlık eğitiminde disiplinler arası bir yaklaşım: Belediye logo yarışmalarında öğrenci deneyimi üzerine bir araştırma. Journal of Awareness (JoA), 8(4), 441-447.
43. Özeren, E., & Dinç Kalaycı, P. (2023). Türkiye mimarlık eğitiminin mevcut durumu ve çeşitlenmeleri. International Refereed Journal of Design and Architecture, 29, 1-20.
44. Proietti, T., & Gepshtein, S. (2025). Vision training for designers. Architectural Science Review, 1-15.
45. Saint, A. (1983). The image of the architect. Yale University Press.
46. Salama, A. M. (2008). A theory for integrating knowledge in architectural design education. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 2(1), 100-128.
47. Schön, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2-9.
48. Sey, Y., & Tapan, M. (1983). Architectural education in Turkey: Past and present. Mimar, 10, 69-75.
49. Shareef, S. S., & Farivarsadri, G. (2020). An innovative framework for teaching/learning technical courses in architectural education. Sustainability, 12(22), 9514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229514
50. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Dædalus, 134(3), 52-59.
51. Sonetti, G., Brown, M., & Naboni, E. (2019). About the triggering of UN sustainable development goals and regenerative sustainability in higher education. Sustainability, 11(1), 254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010254
52. Spiridonidis, C., & Voyatzaki, M. (Eds.). (2011). Learning for the future: New priorities of schools of architecture in the era of uncertainty. EAAE.
53. Şahin, E., & Aksoy, M. (2022). Türkiye’de mimarlık eğitiminin dönüşümü ve kalite değerlendirmesi. Mimarlık ve Eğitim Dergisi, 15(2), 45-60.
54. Taleghani, M., Ansari, H. R., & Jennings, P. (2011). Sustainability in architectural education: A comparison of Iran and Australia. Renewable Energy, 36(7), 2021-2025.
55. UIA (Union Internationale des Architectes). (2011). UIA/UNESCO charter for architectural education (Revised 2011). Union Internationale des Architectes. https://www.uia-architectes.org/ (10.05.2025).
56. Uluoğlu, B. (1990). Mimari tasarım eğitimi: Tasarım bilgisi bağlamında stüdyo eleştirileri [Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü].
57. Wang, H., & Koiwa, M. (2022). A historical perspective of architecture education at Waseda University in Japan: Analyses of the Waseda architecture lecture notes for correspondence education in the early Shōwa period. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 21(3), 766-790.
58. Watt, K., & Mandhar, M. (2008). Internationalisation of architectural education in the context of globalisation. Abacus: International Journal of Architecture, Conservation and Urban Studies, 3(1), 1-16.
59. Webster, H. (2004). Facilitating critically reflective learning: Excavating the role of the design tutor in architectural education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2(3), 101-111.
60. Wright, J. K. (2003). The two-part "finish." In Finishing school: Inquiries into the completion of an architectural education: Proceedings from the ACSA Southeast Regional Meeting (pp. 59–65). School of Architecture and Community Design, University of South Florida.
61. Yalçıntaş, A., & Akkaya, B. (2019). Türkiye’de akademik enflasyon: “Her ile bir üniversite politikası” sonrasında Türk yükseköğretim sistemi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 74(3), 789-810. https://doi.org/10.33630/ausbf.551330
62. YÖK. (2023). Türkiye’de yükseköğretim istatistikleri 2023. Yükseköğretim Kurulu.
63. Yurtsever, B. (2017). Questioning the role of critical thinking in architectural design education [Mimari tasarım eğitiminde eleştirel düşünme becerisinin rolüne ilişkin sorgulama]. Megaron, 12(3), 385-400.
64. Yüksek, İ. (2013). The evaluation of architectural education in the scope of sustainable architecture. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 89, 496–508.
65. Zambrano, M. M., & Morales, Y. A. R. (2022). Habilidades digitales de estudiantes de arquitectura: Estudio exploratorio para integrar las TIC en el aprendizaje del diseño arquitectónico. Etic@net: Revista Científica Electrónica de Educación y Comunicación en la Sociedad del Conocimiento, 22(1), 172-194.
66. Zapp, M., & Ramirez, F. O. (2019). Beyond internationalisation and isomorphism: The construction of a global higher education regime. Comparative Education, 55(4), 473-493.
67. Zitzler, E., & Thiele, L. (1999). Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: A comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 3(4), 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1109/4235.797969