Dialogical Structure Experience in Basic Design Studio at Online Education

Yıl 2021, , 261 - 270, 30.12.2021

Derya Adıgüzel Özbek

https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1010531

Öz

In this study, the structure of the basic design studio that started with face-to-face education and had to end with online education due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was set over Bakhtin's dialogic concept, is discussed. The three main components of the basic design studio; studio space, studio process and studio content and the combination of these components have changed in the transition from face-to-face education to online education. With these changes, dialogic relations are defined in the basic design studio's setup that extends from the face-to-face to the online education, and a structure that is shaped not as a sharp transition but as a flow has been developed. The basic design studio structure, which is shaped by the concept of dialogue, is presented as an approach proposal for online education, which is still ongoing and is expected to continue.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Basic Design Studio, Face-to-face Education, Onilne Education, Dialogic, COVID-19 Pandemic

Teşekkür

I would like to thank Basic Design I and II studio students for their participation and enthusiasm in this study. We would also like to extend our gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Reyhan Uludağ Eraslan for being my colleagu and sharing my passion during the studio classes.

Kaynakça

• Adıgüzel Özbek, D., (2020), Elective Courses as a Dialogic Environment: Sustainable Design in Interior Architecture Course. A+Arch Design International Journal of Architecture and Design (6)2, 75-91. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1374088
• Alexander, R.J. (2018). Developing Dialogue: Genesis, Process, Trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561-598. Retrieved from http://robinalexander.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/RPIE-2018-Alexander-dialogic-teaching.pdf
• Fisher, R. (2007). Dialogic Teaching: Developing Thinking and Metacognition Through Philosophical Discussion. Early Child Development and Care, 177(6-7), 615-631.
• Ozkar, M. ve Steino, N. (2012). Shaping Design Teaching: Exploring Form as An Agent İn Design Reasoning and Pedagogy. In M. Özkar & N. Steino (Eds.), Shaping Design Teaching: Explorations İnto The Teaching of Form (pp. 9-24). Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.
• Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic Teaching Rethinking Language Use During Literature Discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446–456.
• Sarıoğlu Erdoğdu, G. D. (2016). Temel Tasarım Eğitimi: Bir Ders Planı Örneği. Planlama 26(1), 7-19.
• Sözen, H. N. (2010). Sanata Disiplinlerarası Bir Yaklaşım: Enstalasyon Sanatı ve Genco Gülan Örneklemi. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 1 (6), 147-162. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sanatvetasarim/issue/20661/220417
• Senel, S.A. (2014), Haritalama: Bir Anlama, Eleştirme ve Tasarlama Eylemi. In A. Şentürer, N. Paker, Ö. Berber, S.A., Şenel (Eds.), İstanbul İçin Öngörüler taarla – İTÜ MimariTasarım Araştırma Laboratuvarı Çalışmaları (pp.26-33). İstanbul: İTÜ Vakfı Yayınları.
• Senel, S.A. (2019), Mimarlık Eğitiminde Haritalama: Geleneksel Eril Mimarlık Üretimine Yaratıcı Bir Eleştiri, Dosya, no.42, 5-18.
• Yildiz, T. (2014). Diyaloji Diyalektiğe Karşı. Psikoloji Çalışmaları Dergisi 34-1 (pp.79-85)
• Yorgancıoğlu, D., Seyman Güray, T. (2018). Mimari Tasarım Eğitiminde Alternatif Yaklaşımlar: Bir Mekân Tasarımı Stratejisi Olarak “Parazit Mimari”. MEGARON 13(1) (pp.144-155), https://jag.journalagent.com/megaron/pdfs/MEGARON-74946-ARTICLE-YORGANCIOGLU.pdf
• Yüceer, D. (2020). Diyalojik Öğretim ve Ana Dili Eğitimi. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 24 (3), 701-712. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tsadergisi/issue/58254/559836