Aesthetic Differences between Freshmen and Pre-architects

Abstract

This paper demonstrates how architectural representations can be used to identify both differences and commonalities in the way first-year architecture students – as freshmen – and fourth-year architecture students – as pre-architects – perceive the discipline of architecture.  It is believed that, depending on the subjects’ level of learning, the meaning given to architectural appearances can differ. Using multiple sorting techniques, respondents were asked to sort 21 examples of contemporary architecture according to their own criteria. The multi-dimensional scaling analysis has shown that both the freshmen and the pre-architects were homogeneous in their thinking, showing high inter-individual agreement within the group. However, some individuals in the freshman group were closer to those  of pre-architects than other freshmen.  By indicating the possibility of having students who are more interested than their classmates, the research points out the risk of treating first year students as strictly unknowledgeable laypersons.

 

 

Key Words: Freshmen, pre-architects, Meaning, Knowledge structures.

 

Keywords

• Freshmen, pre-architects, Meaning, Knowledge structures

References

1. Hubbard, P., “Conflicting interpretations of architecture: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16: 75-92 (1996).
2. Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C., Kilicoglu, O., “Architecture and engineering students’ evaluations of house façades: preference, complexity and impressiveness”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29: 124-132 (2009).
3. Akalin, A., Yildirim, K., Wilson, C., Saylan, A., “Users’ evaluations of house façades: preference, complexity and impressiveness”, Open House International, (article in press) (2010).
4. Jeffrey, D., Reynolds, G., “Planners, architects, the public, and aesthetics factor analysis of preference for infill developments”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 16: 271-288 (1999).
5. Purcell, A.T., Nasar, J.L., “Experiencing other people’s houses: a model of similarities and differences in environmental experience”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12: 199-211 (1992).
6. Stamps, A.E., “Comparing preferences of neighbours and neighbourhood design review board”, Environment and Behavior, 23: 618-629 (1991).
7. Downing, F., “Image banks: dialogues between the past and future”, Environment and Behavior, 24: 441-470 (1992).
8. Gifford, R., Hine, D.W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds, D.J., Shaw, K.T., “Decoding modern architecture: a lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons”, Environment and Behavior, 32: 163-187 (2000).

9. Hershberger, R.C., “A study of meaning in architecture”, In Sanoff, H., Cohn, S. editors, Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association, Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, 86-100 (1969).
10. Devlin, K., “An examination of architectural interpretation: architects versus non-architects”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7: 235-243 (1990).
11. Groat, L., “Meaning in post-modem architecture: an examination using the multiple sorting task”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2: 3-22 (1982).
12. Wilson, M.A., “The socialization of architectural preference”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16: 33-44 (1996).
13. Wilson, M.A., Canter, D., “The development of central concepts during professional education: an example of a multivariate model of the concept of architectural style”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 39 (4): 431-455 (1990).
14. Baskaya, (Akalin) A., Wilson, C., Ozcan, Y.Z., Karadeniz, D., “A study in re-establishing the corporate identity of a Post Office institution with gender-related differences in perception of space”, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 23 (1): 43-59 (2006).
15. Kahvecioglu, H., “Spatial image in architecture: a model on its formation and structure”, Unpublished PhD thesis, İstanbul Technical University, İstanbul, Turkey, viii-xiii (1998).
16. Nasar, J.L., “Urban design aesthetics: the evaluative qualities of building exterior”, Environment and Behavior, 26 (3): 377-401 (1994).
17. Yıldırım, K., Hidayetoğlu, M.L., “Effects of the locations of curved areas in the main living rooms of apartment housing on user perceptions”, G.U. Journal of Science, 21(2): 51-63 (2008).
18. Groat, L., “Carbuncles, columns, and pyramids: lay and expert evaluations of contextual design strategies”, In Scheer, B.C., Presiser, W.F.E. Editors, Design Review: Challenging Urban Aesthetic Control. New York: Chapman and Hall., 156-164 (1994).
19. Canter, D.V., Brown, J., Groat, L., “Multiple sorting procedures for studying conceptual systems”, In Canter, D.V, Brenner, M., Brown, J. editors, The Research Interview—Uses and Approaches. London: Routledge, 79-144 (1985).