PEYZAJ MİMARLIĞI TASARIM STÜDYOSU DENEYİMLERİNİN YENİ TASARIM PROBLEMLERİNDE KULLANILMASI: KARADENİZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ ÖRNEĞİ

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 260 - 279, 27.12.2021

Sema Mumcu Tuğba Düzenlı̇ Elif Merve Alpak

https://doi.org/10.20488/sanattasarim.1048385

Öz

Çevresel tasarım disiplinlerinin öğretim programlarında yer alan tasarım stüdyoları çeşitli açılardan araştırılmışlardır. Deneyimin tasarımda uzmanlık seviyesine erişmekteki önemi ve tasarım stüdyolarında geçirilen zamanın bundaki katkısı da araştırmalarda sıklıkla dile getirilmiştir. Ancak proje derslerinde kazanılan deneyimlerin daha sonra öğrenciler tarafından farklı problemlere nasıl yansıttığı konusunda araştırmalar yaygın değildir. Bu araştırmada öğrencilerin proje deneyimlerini yeni bir tasarım görevine nasıl yansıttıkları araştırılmıştır. Geçmiş yıllarda sınav sorusu olarak tekrarlanan açık uçlu bir tasarım görevi, arşiv çalışmasıyla araştırma materyali olarak kullanılmıştır. Tasarım stüdyolarında çalıştıkları proje alanları kent olarak farklılıklar sergileyen, 3 farklı yıldan son sınıf öğrencilerinin verdiği yanıtlar seçilmiştir. Toplam 140 yanıtta önerilen kavramlar ve mekân türleri listelenmiş, gruplandırılmış ve kavramsal yaklaşımlar daha sonra uzman grup tarafından sınıflandırılmıştır. Cross-tab ve Chi-kare analizleri ile kavramların yıllara göre dağılımları ve önem düzeyleri ortaya koyulmuştur. Farklı proje deneyimlerine sahip öğrencilerin tasarım kavramlarının ve mekân türlerinin farklılıklar sergilediği ortaya koyulmuştur. Stüdyo deneyimlerinde ağırlıklı olarak Trabzon kentindeki alanlarda tasarım yapan öğrencilerin, tasarım görevine verdikleri yanıtlar daha detaylı, derinlemesine ve çeşitlidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tasarım Stüdyosu, Peyzaj Mimarlığı, Deneyim, Tasarım Öğretimi, Peyzaj Tasarımı

USING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE DESIGN STUDIO EXPERIENCES ON A NEW DESIGN: THE CASE OF KARADENİZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

Öz

Design studio courses in environmental design curricula were investigated from various points of views. The importance of experience in becoming design expert and contribution of the time spent in design studios to become an expert were frequently expressed. However, researches about how the experiences gained in design studios are being reflected on different design problems by students are not common. In this study how students reflect their previous design studio experiences on a given design task was investigated. An open-ended design task which was repeated as an exam question in the past, was used as research material with an archive study. The answers given by senior students from 3 different years, whose project sites in design studios differ in terms of cities, were selected. The concepts and space types suggested in a total of 140 responses were listed and grouped, and conceptual approaches were then classified by the expert group. Through Cross-tab and Chi-Square analyzes importance levels of the distribution of the suggested concepts between different years were revealed. It has been shown that the design concepts and types of spaces that were given as respond to design task by students with different project experiences exhibit differences. The answers given to the design task by the students, who mainly designed sites in Trabzon in their studio experiences, are more detailed, in-depth and varied.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Design Studio, Landscape Architecture, Experience, Design Education, Landscape Design

Kaynakça

• • Alon-Mozes, T. (2006). From ‘reading’ the landscape to ‘writing’ a garden: The narrative approach in the design studio. Jour- nal of Landscape Architecture, 1 (1), 30-37.
• • Alpak, E. M., Özkan, D. G. ve Düzenli, T. (2018). Systems approach in landscape design: a studio work. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 593-611.
• • Artar, M. ve Dal, İ. (2020). Peyzaj mimarlığı eğitiminde tanınırlık ve İngiltere’de programların akreditasyon süreci. Peyzaj, Eğitim, Bilim, Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi (Özel Sayı), 67-74.
• • Atik, M., Olgun, R. ve Soydan, O. (2014). Mezunların gözünden Türkiye’de peyzaj mimarlığı eğitimi. V. Ortaçeşme (Editör), 1. Peyzaj Mimarlığı Eğitim-Öğretim Çalıştayı Bildiriler Kitabı İçinde (s.73-104). Akdeniz Üniversitesi, PEMKON.
• • Casakin, H. (2004). Metaphors in the design studio: Implications for education. International Engineering and Product Design Education Conference, Delft, the Netherlands, s. 265-273.
• • Casakin, H. (2012). An empirical assessment of metaphor use in the design studio: Analysis, reflection and restructuring of architectural design. International Journal of Technolgy & Design Education, 22, 329–344.
• • Chou, R.-J. (2018) Going out into the field: an experience of the landscape architecture studio incorporating service-learning and participatory design in Taiwan. Landscape Research, 43(6), 784-797, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2017.1386290
• • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25, 427–441.
• • Corkery, L. (2004). Students’ Perceptions of Excellence in Landscape Architecture Studio Projects: A UNSW Perspective. Landscape Review, 9(1), 80-85.
• • Curry, T. (2014). A theoretical basis for recommending the use of design methodologies as teaching strategies in the design studio. Design Studies, 35, 632-646.
• • Demirbaş, O. O. ve Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles. Design studies, 24(5), 437-456.
• • Gazvoda, D. (2002). Characteristics of modern landscape architecture and its education. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 117–133.
• • Goldman, S., Carrol, M. P., Kabayadondo, Z., Britos Cavagnaro, L., Royalty, A. W., Roth,B., Kwek, S. H., Kim, J. (2012). As- sessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Editörler), Design thinking research: Measuring performance in context (s. 13–33). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
• • Goldschmidt, G. ve Sever, A. L. (2011). Inspiring design ideas with texts. Design Studies, 32, 139-155.
• • Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C. ve Badke-Schaub, P. (2011). Around you: How designers get inspired. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED11, 15-18 August 2011, Technical University of Denmark.
• • Gray, C. M. (2013). Factors that shape design thinking. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 18 (3), 8-20.
• • Heylighen, A., Neuckermans, H. ve Bouwen, J. E. (1999). Walking on a thin line—between passive knowledge and active knowing of components and concepts in architectural design. Design Studies, 20, 211–235.
• • Johnson, B.R. ve Hill, K. (2002). Introduction: Toward landscape realism. B.R. Johnson, K. Hill (Editörler), Ecology and De- sign Frameworks for Learning (ss. 1-26). Washington DC: Island Press.
• • Kokotovich, V. (2008). Problem analysis and thinking tools: an empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping. Design Studies, 29, 49-69.
• • Kuhn, S. (2001). Learning from the architecture studio: Implications for project-based pedagogy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17 (4-5), 349-352.
• • Kvan, T., ve Yunyan, J. (2005). Students’ learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio. Design Studies, 26(1), 19-34.
• • Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25, 443–457.
• • Lloyd, P. ve Scott, P. (1994). Discovering the design problem. Design Studies, 15, 125–140.
• • Marušič, I. (2002). Some observations regarding the education of landscape architects for the 21st century. Landscape and urban planning, 60(2), 95-103.
• • Miller, S. R., Bailey, B. P. ve Kirlik, A. (2014). Exploring the utility of bayesian truth serum for assessing design knowledge Hu- man–Computer Interaction, 29 (5-6), 487-515, DOI: 10.1080/07370024.2013.870393
• • Mumcu S. ve Düzenli T. (2018). Peyzaj mimarlığı tasarım stüdyosunda kavramsal yaklaşımlar ve esin kaynakları. Megaron, 13(4), 665-678. DOI: 10.5505/MEGARON.2018.16768
• • Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D. ve Do, E. Y. L. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), 302-325.
• • Ortaçeşme, V. (2020). ECLAS - Le:Notre Tuning Projesi bağlamında peyzaj mimarlığı yeterlilikleri ve akreditasyon. PEYZAJ - Eğitim, Bilim, Kültür ve Sanat Dergisi Özel Sayı (2020), 19-32.
• • Ortaçeşme, V., Kınıklı, P. ve yıldırım, E. (2014). Türkiye’deki peyzaj mimarlığı bölümleri ve eğitim-öğretime ilişkin mevcut durum. V. Ortaçeşme (Editör), 1. Peyzaj Mimarlığı Eğitim-Öğretim Çalıştayı Bildiriler Kitabı İçinde (s.31-45). Akdeniz Üniversitesi, PEMKON
• • Özkan, D. G., Alpak, E. M. ve Düzenli, T. (2016). Tasarım eğitiminde yaratıcılığın geliştirilmesi: Peyzaj mimarlığı çevre tasarımı stüdyo çalışması. International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences, 2(4), 136-143.
• • Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.
• • Steinitz, C. (2020). On landscape architecture education and professional practice and their future challenges. Land, 9(7), 228. DOI:10.3390/land9070228
• • Tarakci Eren, E., Düzenli, T., ve Akyol, D. (2018). Attitudes of landscape architecture students towards biomorphic and parametric design approaches in environmental design. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 8(1), 126-143, DOI: 10.20488/sanat- tasarim.510285,
• • Thompson, I. H. (2002). Ecology, community and delight: a trivalent approach to landscape education. Landscape and urban planning, 60(2), 81-93.
• • Van Etteger, R. (2019) Impervious to improvement, reflections on workload in the design-studio. ECLAS and UNISCAPE An- nual Conference, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås Norway, September 16-17, 2019 (s. 133-134).
• • Wolmarans, N. (2016). Inferential reasoning in design: Relations between material product and specialised disciplinary knowl- edge. Design Studies, 45, 92-115.