Hybrid making in furniture design education: bridging digital fabrication and craft through experiential learning

Öz

This paper analyzes a hybrid furniture design studio through the lenses of design pedagogy and experiential learning, investigating how hybrid making can integrate digital fabrication with craft-based practices while supporting thinking through making. Although digital fabrication has gained prominence in design education, empirical research on how digital and craft-based practices can be integrated within a coherent pedagogical framework for furniture design remains limited, indicating a clear research gap. To address this, the study adopts a qualitative case-study methodology, combining studio observations, students’ written and verbal feedback, process documentation, and photographic records. A focused literature review on design education and hybrid making informed three guiding themes: material engagement, critical thinking, and creative discovery. The study contributes an empirically grounded pedagogical framework for hybrid furniture design education, demonstrating how digital modelling and printing, laser cutting, ceramic slip casting, and woodworking can support materially engaged experiential learning. Findings indicate that hybrid workflows enhance creativity and critical thinking while deepening students’ material literacy. Students directly encountered the physical properties of materials, production constraints, and occasional unpredictability as part of an iterative, hands-on learning process that bridges digital and craft-based methods.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• hybrid design
• craft
• digital fabrication
• furniture design education

Mobilya tasarımı eğitiminde hibrit yapım: dijital üretim ile zanaat arasında köprü kurmak

Öz

Bu makale, hibrit bir mobilya tasarım stüdyosunu tasarım pedagojisi ve deneyimsel öğrenme açısından inceleyerek hibrit üretimin dijital fabrikasyon ile zanaatı nasıl bir araya getirebileceğini ve “yaparak düşünme” yaklaşımını nasıl desteklediğini araştırmaktadır. Dijital üretim tasarım eğitiminde önem kazanmış olsa da, dijital ve zanaat temelli süreçlerin mobilya tasarımına yönelik tutarlı bir pedagojik çerçevede nasıl bütünleştirilebileceğine ilişkin ampirik çalışmalar sınırlıdır ve bu durum belirgin bir araştırma boşluğuna işaret etmektedir. Bu boşluğu ele almak amacıyla çalışma, stüdyo gözlemleri, öğrencilerin yazılı ve sözlü geri bildirimleri, süreç dokümantasyonu ve fotoğraf kayıtlarını bir araya getiren nitel bir durum çalışması yöntemi benimsemektedir. Tasarım eğitimi ve hibrit üretim literatürüne dayalı odaklı bir inceleme, üç temel temayı belirlemiştir: malzeme ile etkileşim, eleştirel düşünme ve yaratıcı keşif. Çalışma, dijital modelleme ve baskı, lazer kesim, seramik döküm ve ahşap işçiliğinin malzemeyle etkileşime dayalı deneyimsel öğrenmeyi nasıl destekleyebileceğini gösteren ampirik temelli bir pedagojik çerçeve sunmaktadır. Bulgular, hibrit iş akışlarının yaratıcılığı ve eleştirel düşünmeyi geliştirdiğini, öğrencilerin malzeme okuryazarlığını derinleştirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• hibrit tasarım
• zanaat
• dijital fabrikasyon; mobilya tasarım eğitimi

Kaynakça

1. Bernabei, R., and Power, J. (2018). Hybrid design: Combining craft and digital practice. Craft Research, 9(1), 119-134, DOI: 10.1386/crre.9.1.119_1
2. Boza, L. E., (2006). (Un)intended discoveries: Crafting the design process, Journal of Architectural Education, 60(2), 4–7.
3. Cheatham, D. M., (2017). A multiple intelligences model for design: Developing the ways designers think as design disciplines expand, Dialectic, 1(2), DOI: 10.3998/dialectic.1493 2326.0001.205
4. Frascara, J., (2017). Design and design education: How can they get together?, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 16(1), 125–131, DOI: 10.1386/adch.16.1.125_1
5. Georgiev, G. V., and Nanjappan, V., (2023). Sustainability considerations in digital fabrication design education, Sustainability, 15(2), 1519, DOI:10.3390/su15021519
6. Hanták, J., and Konceková, D., (2023). Positive effects of wood in Vorarlberg’s (Austria) timber kindergartens, Architectural Papers Faculty of Architecture and Design STU, 28, 36–49, DOI:10.2478/alfa-2023-0018
7. Hernández García, L. C., Monteiro, S. N., and Lopera, H. A. C., (2024). Recycling clay waste from excavation, demolition, and construction: trends and challenges. Sustainability, 16(14), 6265. DOI: 10.3390/su16146265
8. Ingold, T. (2012). Toward an ecology of materials. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 427–442, DOI: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145920

9. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge, DOI: 10.4324/9780203559055
10. Kahraman, M. U., Şekerci, Y., Bal, H., and Bakır, K. E., (2024). Human-centered approach for furniture design studio course in interior design education: A case study, Furniture and Wooden Material Research Journal, 7(1), 121–135, DOI: 10.33725/mamad.1485323
11. Kılıç, O., (2016). Role of digital production techniques in furniture manufacturing, Muğla Journal of Science and Technology, 2(2), 72–76, DOI: 10.22531/muglajsci.283622
12. Leatherbarrow, D., (2009). Architecture oriented otherwise, University of Pennsylvania Press.
13. Malafouris, L. (2023). Enactychism: Enacting chance in creative material engagement, Possibility Studies & Society, 1(3), 300-310, DOI: 10.1177/2753869923117817
14. McCullough, M., (1996). Abstracting craft: The practiced digital hand, MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-13326-1
15. McCullough, M., (2005). The hand across twenty years of digital craft, Ann Arbor, MI:: University of Michigan Press.
16. Mujir, M. S., Anwar, R., and Hassan, O. H., (2018). Advanced digital design prototyping for manufacturing of exclusive wood carving furniture products, Proceedings of the Art and Design International Conference (AnDIC 2016), 291–297, Springer, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-0487-3_32
17. Nasir, O., Iqbal, M. F., and Kamal, M. A., (2022). An appraisal of 3D printing technology in interior architecture and product design, Architecture Engineering and Science, 3(3), 188–197, DOI: 10.32629/aes.v3i3.1009
18. Pek, E., Cihaner Keser, S., and Güler, Ç., (2022). Deficiencies and potential corrections in ceramic art education according to the ceramic industry employees, Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 17(9), 10.18844/cjes.v17i9.7739, DOI: 10.18844/cjes.v17i9.7739
19. Rowe, A., (2024). A necessary shift in design education: From outputs to outcomes, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 44(1), 4–17, DOI: 10.1111/jade.12521
20. Soomro, S. A., Casakin, H., and Georgiev, G. V., (2021). Sustainable design and prototyping using digital fabrication tools for education, Sustainability, 13(3), 1196, DOI: 804, 10.3390/su13031196
21. Soomro, S. A., Casakin, H., and Georgiev, G. V., (2022). A systematic review on FabLab environments and creativity: Implications for design, Buildings, 12(6), DOI: 10.3390/buildings12060804
22. Yan, W., Zhao, D., and Mehta, A., (2023). Fabrication-aware design for furniture with planar pieces, Robotica, 41(1), 48–73, DOI:10.1017/S0263574722000443
23. Ylioja, J., Georgiev, G. V., Sánchez, I., and Riekki, J., (2019). Academic recognition of Fab Academy, Proceedings of the FabLearn Europe 2019 Conference, 1–7, DOI: 10.1145/3335055.3335056
24. Zhang, Z., and Wei, P., (2024). The beauty of clay: Exploring contemporary ceramic art as an aesthetic medium in education, Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación, 78, 67-81, DOI:10.58262/V32I78.6
25. Zoran, A., (2013). Hybrid craft: Showcase of physical and digital integration in design and craft skills, Leonardo, 48(4), 384-398, DOI:10.1162/LEON_a_01093
26. Zoran, A., and Buechley, L., (2013). Hybrid reassemblage: An exploration of craft, digital fabrication, and artifact uniqueness, Leonardo, 46(1), 4–10, DOI:10.2307/23468110