The Architectural Design Studio: A Case in the Intersection of the Conventional and the New

Abstract

This study investigated the evolution of the methods and tools used in the architectural design studio. The focus was on the MIM 201 Architectural Design Studio II course, based on a hybrid approach where conventional and new methods are used together. For this reason, the primary data sources of the study are student productions, observations, and comments of studio tutors. While presenting the data in the article, an approach that fragmented the studio was followed instead of a chronological path. Thus, all studio elements were discussed separately, and their potential was demonstrated. The study showed that conventional tools such as context-subject, critiques, and jury are still essential and effective studio components. On the other hand, it was observed that new tools (QD) joining the studio enriched the studio experience, but the potential of some of them (OB) needed to be developed. Study findings also showed that students preferred face-to-face and active communication in the studio. The learning space was one of the most important parts of the process as an atmosphere for student motivation and belonging.

Keywords

• architectural design studio
• architectural education
• conventional
• new

References

1. Ardington, A., Drury, H. (2017). Design studio discourse in architecture in Australia: The role of formative feedback in assessment. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 16(2), 157-170.
2. Aydınlı, S. (2001). ‘Mimarlık Eğitiminde Öncelikler’, Mimar-ist, Ocak 2001, s. 116–120.
3. Aydınlı, S. (2016). Tasarım Eğitiminde Yapılandırıcı Paradigma: ‘Öğrenmeyi Öğrenme’. Tasarım + Kuram, 11(20), 1-18.
4. Bonwell, C.C. (1996). Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing a traditional format. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, pp. 31–44.
5. Broadfoot, O., Bennett, R. (2003). Design Studios: Online? Comparing traditional face-to-face Design Studio education with modern internet-based design studios. The Traditional Design Studio. Apple University Consortium Academic and Developers Conference Proceedings, pp. 9–21.
6. Callicott, N., Sheil, B. (2000). The Degree Laboratory. In D. Nicol and S. Pilling eds. Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 49-59
7. Çağlar, N., Uludağ, Z. (2006). Architectural Design Education: Designing a Library, Public Communication, and Information Center in the Manufacturing Zone of Central Eskişehir Turkey, a Case Study. International Journal of Art & Design Education, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp. 116-252.
8. Dreamson, N. (2020). Online design education: Meta-connective pedagogy. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 39(3), 483–497. doi:10.1111/jade.12314

9. Güney, D., Yürekli, H. (2004). Mimarlığın tanımı üzerine bir deneme. itüdergisi/a, mimarlık, planlama, tasarım. Cilt:3, Sayı:1, pp. 31-42.
10. Kararmaz, Ö., Ciravoğlu, A. (2017). Erken Dönem Mimari Tasarım Stüdyolarına Deneyim Tabanlı Yaklaşımların Bütünleştirilmesi zerine Bir Araştırma. Megaron, 12(3).
11. Kvan, T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction, 10(3), 345–353. doi:10.1016/S0926-5805(00)00051-0
12. Kurt, S. (2009). An analytic study on the traditional studio environments and the use of the constructivist studio in architectural design education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, pp. 1, 401–408.
13. Nicol, D., Pilling S. (ed.) (2000). Changing Architectural Education, London: Taylor and Francis Publications
14. Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: Theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29(2), 99–120. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.003
15. Ozorhon, G., Eryildiz, D., Aysu, E. (2012). A studio-centric new model in design education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 321-326. d:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.658
16. Ozorhon, G., Lekesiz, G. (2021). Re-considering the Architectural Design Studio after Pandemic: Tools, Problems, Potentials. Journal of Design Studio, 3 (1), 19-36. DOI:10.46474/jds.927181
17. Paker-Kahvecioğlu, N. (2007). Architectural Design Studio Organization and Creativity. ITU A/Z, Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, Volume 4, No:2, pp 6-26.
18. Polatoğlu, C., Yurtsever, B. (2020). Mimari Tasarım Eğitiminde "Aktif Stüdyo" Deneyimleri. Megaron / Yıldız Technical University, Faculty of Architecture E-Journal. 15(3), 412-419
19. Salama, A. M. (1995). New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio, USA: Tailored Text and Unlimited Potential Publishing.
20. Salama, A.M. (2008). A Theory for Integrating Knowledge in Architectural Design Education, Archnet-IJAR, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 100-128
21. Salama, A.M. (2015). Spatial design education: New directions for pedagogy in architecture and beyond. Spatial design education: New directions for pedagogy in architecture and beyond (pp. 1–385)
22. Schön, D. (1985). The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials, RIBA.
23. Uysal, M., Aydin, D., Siramkaya, S. B. (2012). A model intended for building design education in the context of cultural variety and continuity: Sille Design Studio. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 51, 53-63.
24. Varnelis, K. (2007). Is there Research in the Studio?, Journal of Architectural Education 61, no. 1, Architectural Design as Research, Scholarship, and Inquiry. pp:11-14.
25. Yücel, S., Aydınlı, S. (2015). Mimarın eğitimi üzerine spekülatif bir deneme. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi , 31 (1) , 17-23.