How the Enthusiasm and Pre-Knowledge of First Year Architectural Students Effects Their Educational Performance

Abstract

 

This study, which has been carried out by means of a survey of 450 students of 10 departments of architecture in Turkey, has been formed to reveal, from the students’ point of view, in adapting to the new language of architectural discourse. The survey consisted of interpretative questions related to the factors that affected their choice of studying architecture, the level of the students’ interest in architecture. The performance of enthusiastic students in the design studio was higher than the others. However, the study also concluded that enthusiastic students were not seen as an advantage for learning architectural representation techniques, which were more easily comprehended by all students, regardless of previous knowledge.

 

Key words: first year architectural education, basic design, technical drawing, student proposals.

 

 

Keywords

• first year architectural education, basic design, technical drawing, student proposals.

Performance

Abstract

References

1. Akin, O. (2002), “Case-Based Instruction Strategies in Architecture,” Design Studies, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 407–431
2. Frith, C. Motivation To Learn, Educational Communications and Technology University of Saskatchewan Cappleman O. & Jordan, M. J. (1993) Foundation in
3. Architecture: An Annotated Anthology of Beginning Design Projects. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Cross N. (1982) “Designerly Ways of Knowing,”
4. Design Studies, vol. 3, no.4, pp. 221-227. Cross N. (1991) “Research in Design Thinking,”
5. Design Studies, vol. 12, pp. 3-10. Royal Institute of British Architects (2003)
6. Tomorrow’s Architect, London. Andrew, R. (2006), “Cognitive Styles and Student
7. Progression in Architectural Design Education,” Design Studies, vol. 27, no. 2, pp.167-181
8. Zeisel, J. (1981) Inquiry by Design Tools for Environment-Behavior

9. Publishing Company: Monterey, California. Research, Brooks/Cole Chan, Chui-Shui (1990) “Cognitive Processes in
10. Architectural Design Problem Solving,” Design Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 60-80. Oxman, R. (2004) “Think-Maps: Teaching Design
11. Thinking,” Design Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 63-91. Cross N. (1982) “Designerly Ways of Knowing,”
12. Design Studies, vol. 3, no.4, pp. 221-227. Atman, C. (1999). “A Comparison of Freshman and Senior Engineering Design Processes,” Design Studies, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 131-152.
13. Hargrove, R., “Exploring the Role of Design Educational Styles in Students’ Thinking Processes Research Study,” DDN 701, Research Methods in Design.(online) http://ncsudesign.org/content/baran/ddn702/hargrove_d dn702_analyticalessay.pdf (accessed in 25 February 2013). Available at:
14. McCoy K. (1990). “Professional Design Education:
15. An Opinion and a Proposal,” Design Issues, vol. 7, no.1, pp. 20-22.