Examining Problem Solving Ability And Creativity Of The Students In Design Studio

Abstract

The willingness, the pre-college training, earned cultural and knowledge background of a student are important factors that have effect on student profiles. A 3-stage sketch problem examination which is aimed to evaluate their drawing, problem solving abilities and creativities was designed in a vertically organized design studio.  It was observed that problem solving ability of the students considerably favorable than their creativity. With the purpose of developing the creativity of the students, a study method which is based on the formal and structural experimentation was suggested for the future studio studies regarding to current  architectural trends.  

 

Key words: Design Education; Student Profile; Willingness; Problem Solving; Creativity

Keywords

• Design Education; Student Profile; Willingness; Problem Solving; Creativity

References

1. Casakin, H., “Metaphors in Design Problem Solving: Implications for Creativity”, International Journal of Design, 1 (2):23-35 (2007).
2. Christiaans, H.H.C.M., “Creativity as a Design Criterion”, Creativity Research Journal, 14 (1): 41– 54 (2002).
3. Welling, H., “Four Mental Operations in Creative Cognition: The Importance of Abstraction”, Creativity Research Journal, 19 (2): 163-177 (2007).
4. Unwin, S., “A bridge into architecture”, LTSN Centre for Education in the Built Environment AEE, Architectural Educators: 11th -12th September, Cardiff University, 1-16 (2001).
5. Anonymous, “The ills of architectural education: a diagnosis”, Journal of Architectural Education, 17 (4): 93-99 (1963).
6. Cross, N., “Design research: a disciplined conversation”, Design Issue, 15 (2): 5-10 (1999).
7. Baynes, K., “Defining a design dimension of the curriculum”, International Journal of Art Design Education, 4 (3): 237 (1985).
8. Peichl, G.,“Architectural education and the principle of the “masterschool”, Journal of Architectural Education, 40 (2): Jubilee Issue, 55-56 (1987).

9. Liddament, T., “Design and problem solving”, Idater 96, Loughbour University, 1-5 (1996).
10. McCoy, J. M, Evans, G.W., “The potential role of the physical environment in fostering creativity”, Creativity Research Journal, 14 (3&4): 409–426 (2002).
11. Yu-Tung, L., “Creativity or novelty?”, Design Studies, 21: 261–276 (2000).
12. Royal Institute of British Architects., “Tomorrow’s architect”, London, (2003).
13. Wolffe, M., Defesche, A., Lans, W., “Valued approach to the assessment of design skills in architectural education: a pilot study”, Quality in Higher Education, 5(2): 125-132 (1999).
14. Lawson, B., “How designers think: the design process demystified”, Architectural Press, Oxford, (1997).
15. Schön, D., “The design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potentials”, RIBA Publications, London,(1985).
16. Andrew, R., “Cognitive styles and student
17. progression in architectural design education”, Design Studies, 27(2): 167-181 (2006).
18. Garvin, W.L., “Creativity and the design process”, Journal of Architectural Education, 19 (1): 3-4 (1964).
19. Eder, W.E., Hubka, V., “Curriculum, pedagogics and didactics for design education”, Journal of Engineering, Design, 16 (1): 45-61 (2005).
20. Cross, N., “Descriptive models of creative design: application to an example”, Design Studies, 18 (4): 427-440 (1997).
21. Dorst, K., Cross, N., “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”, Design Studies, 22 (5): 425-437 (2001).
22. Meneely, J., Portillo, M., “The Adaptable mind in design: relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance”, Creativity Research Journal, 17 (2&3):155–166 (2005).
23. Venturi, R., “Learning from Las Vegas”, MIT Press, Cambridge,(1972).
24. Stern, R., “Modern Clasisism”, Thames and Hudson, London, (1988).
25. Papadakis, A., Steele, J., “Architecture der
26. gegenward”, edition Pierre TaiJ, Paris, (1997).