MEASURING THE EFFECTS OF A CARTOGRAPHY-BASED PLATFORM ON THE ONLINE DESIGN PROCESS

Year 2022, - Vol.23 - 16th DDAS (MSTAS) Special Issue -2022, 1 - 16, 23.12.2022

Muhammet Ali Heyik , Cemile Gül Gürcan , Togan Tong , Meral Erdoğan

https://doi.org/10.18038/estubtda.1164785

Abstract

As the use of online learning in architectural education has increased, the patterns of the past are now being discussed considering the current pandemic. It is crucial to evaluate the strategies developed in this crisis when the institutional infrastructure, educators, and students rapidly adapt to this context. The use of cartography-based platforms (CBP) as an architectural information communication technology (ICT) enabled tool for interaction, ideation, and evaluation is examined in this research along with its potential and limits. It aims to contribute to the existing hybrid learning ecosystem. Research methodology is developed within the framework of integration, experimentation, and measurement. CBP experiments were modularly integrated into design courses in 2021 and 2022, respectively, and were conducted with the participation of approximately 400 students. In the scope of the course, each student (individually or in groups) is expected to have a field analysis and design proposal for a public space. Measurements related to three main factors and correlations between interface effects on user experience are based on the process, output, and questionnaires. Findings reveal the potential of the CBP strategy, which is implemented practically, to turn crises into opportunities. Statistical results related to measured factors underscore significant effects. Discussions based on the two experiments intensify on systematization, interaction, transparency, and parametrization in the online design process. According to the first experiment’s feedback, customization of the interface provides positive results based on an independent T-test. The limitations or changing priorities could be improved with the ongoing experimental applications. Other related studies also support the different variants and widespread impact of the strategy designed and evaluated here. The study shows potential for modular or holistic use in different contexts. As a result, the use of CBP contributes to an up-to-date discussion with its outputs based on empirical studies at a variety of scales.

Keywords

Design education, Public space, Architectural-ICT tools, Cartography-based platform, Collective Intelligence

References

• [1] Baggaley J. Distance education technologies: An Asian perspective. Distance Educ 2007;28:125–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910701439191.
• [2] Zawacki-Richter O, Naidu S. Mapping research trends from 35 years of publications in Distance Education. Distance Educ 2016;37:245–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1185079.
• [3] Conrad D, Witthaus G. Reimagining and reexamining assessment in online learning. Distance Educ 2021;42:179–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1915117.
• [4] Pelletier K, Brown M, Brooks DC, Mccormack M, Reeves J, Bozkurt A, et al. 2021 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report. Teaching and Learning Edition. 2021.
• [5] Jones D, Lotz N. Editorial Design Education: Teaching in Crisis. Des Technol Educ an Int J 2021;26:4–9.
• [6] Cross N. Forty years of design research. Des Stud 2007;28:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2006.11.004.
• [7] Morkel J, Burton LO, Delport H, Olweny M, Feast S. Towards an Ecosystem-of-Learning for Architectural Education: Reflecting on a network of six pedagogical clusters. Charrette 2021;7:15–40.
• [8] Tregloan K, Thompson J. Buckle Up! BEL+T group learnings from a (very fast) move online,. Charrette 2021;7.1:59–75.
• [9] Sariyildiz S, Van der Veer P. The role of ICT as a partner in Architectural Design Education. Proc 16th Int Conf Educ Res Comput Aided Archit Des Eur 2022:139–46. https://doi.org/10.52842/conf.ecaade.1998.139.
• [10] Huybrechts L, Dreessen K, Schepers S. Mapping design practices: on risk, hybridity and participation. Proc. 12th Particip. Des. Conf. Explor. Pap. Work. Descr. Ind. Cases, 2012, p. 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/2348144.2348155.
• [11] Hutzell K. “ Mapping Urbanism .” 2012 ACSA Int. Proc., 2012.
• [12] Santos B, Gonçalves J, Martins AM, Pérez-Cano MT, Mosquera-Adell E, Dimelli D, et al. Gis in architectural teaching and research: Planning and heritage. Educ Sci 2021;11:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060307.
• [13] Fleischmann K. From studio practice to online design education: Can we teach design online? Can J Learn Technol 2019;45:1–19. https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27849.
• [14] Kristianova K, Joklova V. on-Site Research, Excursions, and Field Trips in Architectural Education – Constraints in the Time of Covid-19. ICERI2020 Proc 2020;1:5677–82. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2020.1219.
• [15] Abdulmajeed K, Joyner DA, McManus C. Challenges of Online Learning in Nigeria. Proc Seventh ACM Conf Learn Scale 2020:417–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386527.3405953.