(A)symmetric Developments in Professional Education:A Cross-Cultural Investigation with Students of Architecture

Year 2013, Volume: 26 Issue: 1, 129 - 139, 31.03.2013

Pinar Dinc , Derya Arslan Zbigniew Paszkowsky

Abstract

Architects’ judgments on physical environments were found to be distinguishable from the judgments of nonarchitects. Dissimilarities between value sets were attributed to the professional education of architects. Level and school differences were also found to have significant effect on judgments. This article focuses on the judgment differences between students of a Polish school of architecture and a Turkish one in order to exemplify the dimensions of culture and level (dis)similarities. 2 nd and 4th year students (N=160) of schools were asked to judge 45 building images in terms of practical and theoretical concerns. A control group of eminent design teachers (n=13) scored each image for concrete and abstract attributes (N=25). Results were checked through 2 successive Lens Models which correlated 2nd & 2nd and 4th & 4th year responses with the scores of the control group. The constancy of the correlations for the theoretical concern variable was a noteworthy finding supporting previous studies that claimed the presence of an underlying judgment structure gained through architectural education. On the other hand, the findings indicated an asymmetric development of culture groups, i.e. earlier development of Polish students in terms of internalizing the typical value sets compared to their Turkish peers. Value sets were found to get more congruent as students progressed in education. Results underline the homogenizing effect of the professional education. The study also proposes an adaptation of the Lens Model to the field of architectural research by which further comparative studies become available with the architects who adopt different tenets.

Keywords

architectural education, judgment, culture, Lens Model

References

• Dinç, P., Yüksel, E.I., “A Lens Model Approach for Analyzing the Judgment Differences of European and Turkish Architectural Students”, Arkitekt, 523: 44-59 (2010).
• Fawcett, W., Ellingham, I., Platt, S. “Reconciling the Architectural Preferences of Architects and the Public, The Ordered Preference Model”, Environment and Behavior, 40(5): 599-618 (2008).
• Brown, G., Gifford, R. “Architects Predict Lay Evaluations of Large Contemporary Buildings: Whose Conceptual Properties?” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1): 93-99 (2001).
• Gifford R., Hine, D.W., Muller-Clemm, W., Reynolds D.J., Shaw, K. “Decoding Modern architecture, a Lens model approach for understanding the aesthetic differences of architects and laypersons”, Environment and Behavior, 32 (2): 163-187 (2000).
• Gifford R., Hine, D.W., Muller-Clemm, W., Shaw, K.. “Why architects and laypersons judge buildings differently. Cognitive properties and physical bases” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 19 (2): 131-148 (2002).
• Hershberger, R.G. (1969). “A study of meaning and architecture”. In H. Sanoff & S. Cohen (Eds), (pp. 86- 100). EDRA 1: Proceedings of the First Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference. Radleigh: North Carolina State University.
• Hershberger, R.G. “A study of meaning and architecture”. In J.L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics. (pp.175-194). Cambridge University Press. (1988).
• Nasar, J.L. “Symbolic Meanings of House Styles”, Environment and Behavior, 21(3): 235-257 (1989).
• Nasar, J.L., and Kang, J. “House Style Preference and Meanings Across Cultures” Lanscape and Urban Planning, 44, 33-42 (1999).
• Nasar, J.L. and Devlin, A.S. “Regional Variation in Preferences for Vernacular Houses”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1): 41-66 (2000).
• Nesbitt, K. “Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory” 1965-1995, Princeton Architectural Press (1996).
• Purcell T. “Experiencing American and Australian high-and-popular-style houses”, Environment and Behavior, 27: 771-800 (1995).
• Purcell 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).
• Wilson M.A. “The socialization of architectural preference”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16: 33-44 (1996).
• Wilson M.A., Canter D.V. “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: 431-455 (1990).
• Wilson M.A. “The socialization of architectural preference”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16: 33-44 (1996).
• Withfield A., “Wiltshire J. Design training and aesthetic evaluation: an intergroup comparison” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2:109-117 (1982).