İÇ MİMARLIK EĞİTİMİNDE ÖĞRENCİ PROFİLİ ODAKLI BİR DEĞERLENDİRME: BİR TASARIM STÜDYOSU DENEYİMİ

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 192 - 207, 09.07.2021

Özlem Kurt Çavuş Mustafa Çavuş B.burak Kaptan

https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.971653

Cited By: 1

Öz

Bu makale, içmimarlık bölümünde bir tasarım stüdyosu dersinde önceki öğrenimlerine göre farklılık gösteren iki öğrenci grubunun bir karşılaştırmasını içermektedir. Birinci grup, bölüme meslek okulları mezuniyetinden sonra uygulanan geçiş sınavı ile kabul edilmiş öğrenciler, diğer grup ise merkezi sınav puanına göre yerleştirilmiş standart öğrencilerden oluşmaktadır. İlk grubun ayırt edici özelliği, iki yıllık mesleki eğitimden sonra lisans eğitimine geçmeleridir. Bu grup, önceki öğrenim bakımından almış oldukları önlisans eğitimi nedeniyle, diğer gruba göre farklı bir arka plana sahiptir. Bilindiği gibi, tasarım stüdyosu, tasarım sürecini ve öğrencilerin performanslarının gözlemlenebilmesi için oldukça uygun bir ortamdır. Tasarım stüdyolarındaki öğrenci faktörü ise, tasarım eğitiminin içeriğini geliştirme hedefiyle yoğun olarak tartışılmaktadır. Bu çalışma kapsamında, tasarım stüdyosu ortamında bu iki grubun başarı koşullarının bilimsel olarak değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Standart öğrenciler ve geçiş öğrencilerinin başarı düzeyleri, tasarım stüdyolarının performanslarına göre karşılaştırılmıştır. Sonuç olarak geçiş öğrencilerinin başarı durumlarında, önceki öğrenime bağlı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunamamıştır. Ancak stüdyo sürecinde gerçekleştirilen gözlem ve grup görüşmeleri yoluyla, öğrencilerin tasarım stüdyosu performanslarına ilişkin bazı nitel çıkarsamalarda bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tasarım eğitimi, İçmimarlık eğitimi, Tasarım stüdyosu, Stüdyo pedagojisi, Öğrenci profili

A STUDENT FOCUSED EVALUATION OF INTERIOR DESIGN EDUCATION: A DESIGN STUDIO EXPERIENCE

Öz

This article includes a comparison of two student groups which differ according to their previous learning within a design studio course in the department of interior design. The first group is the students who have enrolled in the department through a transition exam applied after the graduation of vocational schools, and the other group consists of standard students who enrolled according to the score of a central exam. The distinguishing feature of the first group is that they have passed to the faculty after two years of vocational education. The transition students have different backgrounds for their previous learning. As it is known, the design studio is an opportune environment to observe the design process and students’ performances. Also student factor in design studios is currently being discussed intensively to improve the content of design education. From this perspective, it is aimed to evaluate success circumstances of these two groups scientifically through the design studio environment. The success levels of standard and transition students were compared based on performances of the design studios. Consequently, no statistically significant difference was found depends on the backgrounds of students, however some qualitative inferences were made through interpretation in the scope of the study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Design education, Interior design education, Design studio, Studio pedagogy, Student profiles

Kaynakça

• • Altay, B. (2014). User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (2), 138-155.
• • Babapour, M., Ahangari, S. and Ahour, T. (2018). The effect of shadow reading and collaborative strategic reading on EFL learners’ reading comprehension across two proficiency levels. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 13 (4), 318- 330.
• • Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M. and Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23 (2), 329-348.
• • Cho, J. Y. (2017). An investigation of design studio performance in relation to creativity, spatial ability, and visual cognitive style. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23 (2017), 67-78.
• • Cordan, O., Gorgul, E., Numan, B. and Cincik, B. (2014). Curriculum development in interior architecture education: ITU case. ITU A|Z Journal, 11 (1), 185-197.
• • Demirbas, O. O. and Demirkan, H. (2000). Privacy dimensions: A case study in the interior architecture design studio. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20 (1), 53-64.
• • Demirbas, O. O. and Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles. Design Studies, 24 (5) 437-456.
• • Demirkan, H. (2016). An inquiry into the learning-style and knowledge-building preferences of interior architecture students. Design Studies, 44 (3), 28-51.
• • Garip, B. and Garip, E. (2012). Addressing Environmental Design in Interior Architecture Education: Reflections on the Interior Design Studio. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 972-979.
• • Gurel, M. O. (2010). Explorations in teaching sustainable design: A studio experience in interior design/architecture. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 29 (2), 184-199.
• • Kang, S. (2018). Motivation and Preference for Acoustic or Tablet-Based Musical Instruments: Comparing Guitars and Gayageums. Journal of Research in Music Education, 66 (3), 278-294.
• • Kvan, T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction, 10 (3), 345-353.
• • Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of Design in Studio Teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38 (2), 2-8.
• • McDonagh, D. and Thomas, J. (2010). Disability + relevant design: Empathic design strategies supporting more effective new product design outcomes. Design Journal, 13 (2), 180-198.
• • Mills, J. E. and Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering Education: Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3 (2), 2-16.
• • Paker-Kahvecioğlu N. (2001). PhD thesis: Interaction of Knowledge and Creativity in Architectural Design Education, Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University.
• • Sagun, A., Demirkan, H. and Goktepe, M. (2001). A framework for the design studio in web-based education. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 20 (3), 332-342.
• • Schneiderman, D. and Freihoefer, K. (2013). The Prefabricated Interior Design Studio: An Exploration into the History and Sustainability of Interior Prefabrication. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 32 (2), 226-242.
• • Schön, D. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potential. London: Royal Institute of British Architects Publications.
• • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• • Webster, H. (2008). Architectural Education after Schon: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and Beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3 (2), 65.
• • Winter, J. C. F. (2013). Using the student’s t-test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation.