İnteraktif Eğitim Yoluyla Çevre Bilincinin Geliştirilmesi: Mobil Kent Modülünün Tasarımı ve Uygulanması

Öz

Bu proje, İzmir'de dezavantajlı mahallelerdeki çocuklar ve okullar öncelikli olmak üzere tüm kamusal alanlarda geri dönüşüm ve çevre konularında farkındalık yaratarak olumlu bir değişim yaratmak için tasarım odaklı çözümler sunmayı amaçlayan bir sosyal sorumluluk projesidir. Proje, tasarım sürecine disiplinler arası bir bakış açısı sunarak, dezavantajlı mahallelerdeki topluluğun ihtiyaçlarını belirlemek ve içgörü toplamak için ortak tasarım yaklaşımını kullanmıştır. Çocuklardan oluşan bir odak grupla gerçekleştirilen atölye çalışması bulgularına dayanarak, şehir içinde dolaşacak ve topluluğun ihtiyaç ve hayallerine göre etkinliklere ev sahipliği yapacak mobil bir kentsel modül tasarlanmıştır. “OYUN” konsepti bu sosyal sorumluluk projesinin merkezi yönünü oluşturdu; bu nedenle İzmir Ekonomi Üniversitesi (İEÜ) öğrencileri, çocuklar ve paydaşlarla -İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi (İBB) ve İzmir Ticaret Odası (İZTO)- mobil kent modülünün grafik kimlik, hizmet-sistem stratejisi, iç tasarım ve ürün tasarımı gibi çeşitli yönlerini tasarlamak için işbirliği yaptı. Çocukların kendi eğitim hayatlarında birincil aktör olmaları ve kendilerini etkileyen durum ve kararlarda seslerini yükseltmeleri gerektiğine inanıyoruz.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İşbirlikçi Tasarım
• Mobil Kentsel Modül
• Yerel Toplum
• İnteraktif Eğitim
• Mekansal-Hizmet Tasarımı

Enhancing Environmental Awareness Through Interactive Education: Design and Implementation of a Mobile Urban Module

Öz

This is a social responsibility project that aims to provide design-oriented solutions to create a positive change by fostering awareness about recycling, and environmental issues among children in disadvantageous neighborhoods and all the public spaces prioritizing schools in İzmir, Turkey. The project used a co-design approach to gather insights and determine the needs of the community in disadvantaged neighborhoods, offering an interdisciplinary perspective to the design process. Based on the workshop session findings which is conducted with a focus group of children a mobile urban module is designed to circulate within the city and host activities according to the needs and dreams of the community. The “PLAY” concept was the central aspect of this social responsibility project; therefore, students from the İzmir University of Economics (İUE) collaborated with children and stakeholders -the İzmir Metropolitan Municipality (İBB) and Izmir Chamber of Commerce (İZTO)- to design various aspects of the mobile urban module, including graphic identity, service-system strategy, interior design, and product design. We believe that children need to be primary actors in their own education life and raise their voices in the situations and decisions that affect them.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Co-design
• Mobile Urban Module
• Local Community
• Interactive Education
• Spatial-Service Design

Kaynakça

1. Antonini, M. (2021). An overview of co-design: Advantages, challenges and perspectives of users’ involvement in the design process. Journal of Design Thinking, 2(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.22059/jdt.2020.272513.1018
2. Atakan, M. G. S., & Eker, T. (2007). Corporate identity of a socially responsible university – A case from the Turkish higher education sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 55-68.
3. Bergmark, U., & Westman, S. (2016). Co-creating curriculum in higher education: Promoting democratic values and a multidimensional view on learning. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 28-40.
4. Birch, J. C., Parnell, R., Patsarika, M., & Šorn, M. (2017). Participating together: Dialogic space for children and architects in the design process. Children's Geographies, 15, 224-236.
5. Blanchet-Cohen, N., & Rainbow, B. (2006). Partnership between children and adults: The experience of the International Children’s Conference on the Environment. Childhood, 13(1), 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568206059976
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
8. Budds, D. (2017). Designing for social justice: 4 lessons from Chicago architects. FastCompany. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/90130085/designing-for-social-justice-4-lessons-from-a-chicago-architect

9. Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching user experience: Getting the design right and the right design. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374037-3.X5043-3
10. Chia, M. (2007). PRIDE for PLAY: Personal responsibility in daily effort for participation in lifelong activity for youths. A Singaporean context. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 6(3), 374-379.
11. Chile, L., & Black, X. (2015). University–community engagement: Case study of university social responsibility. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197915607278
12. Day, L., Sutton, L., & Jenkins, S. (2011). Children and young people's participation in planning and regeneration: A final report to the Ecorys Research Programme 2010-11.
13. Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS). (2000). A sporting future for all. London, UK.
14. Dewey, J. (1997). My pedagogic creed. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp. 17-23). New York, NY: Routledge.
15. Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(1), 1-25.
16. Eberle, S. G. (2012). Mirror neurons firing at the House of Blues: Embodied thoughts at the start of the weekend. Play in Mind, Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/play-in-mind/201206/mirror-neurons-firing-the-house-blue
17. Ghaziani, R. (2008). Children's voices: Raised issues for school design. CoDesign, 4(4), 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880802536403
18. Gutierrez, K. D., & Jurow, A. S. (2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 565-598.
19. Halse, J., Brandt, E., Clarke, B., & Binder, T. (Eds.). (2010). Rehearsing the future. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Design School Press.
20. Hansen, A. S. (2017). How to best communicate with and encourage children during a design process.
21. Ershler, J., Johnson, J. E., & Lawton, J. T. (1982). Intellective correlates of preschoolers' spontaneous play. Journal of General Psychology, 106(1), 115-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1982.9710980
22. Kang, M., Choo, P., & Watters, C. (2015). Design for experiencing: Participatory design approach with multidisciplinary perspectives. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 830-833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.676
23. Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3, 285-306. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216
24. Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting children's participation in democratic decision-making. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Innocenti Insight.
25. Martin, S., Goff, R., & O'Keeffe, P. (2023). Integrating design thinking into social work education: a scoping review of practices and identification of opportunities for curriculum innovation. Social Work Education. 43. 1-20. 10.1080/02615479.2023.2238713.
26. Manzini, E. (2017). Designing coalitions: Design for social forms in a fluid world. Strategic Design Research Journal.
27. Margolin, V., & Margolin, S. (2002). A 'social model' of design: Issues of practice and research. Design Issues, 18(4). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
28. Mattelmäki, T., & Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2011). Lost in CO-X - Interpretations of co-design and co-creation. In L-L. C. Norbert Roozenburg (Ed.), Proceedings of IASDR'11, 4th World Conference on Design Research (pp. 4). Delft University: International Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR).
29. McDonnell, J. (2012). Accommodating disagreement: A study of effective design collaboration. Design Studies, 33(1), 44-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.05.003
30. Nejati, M., Shafaei, A., Salamzadeh, Y., & Daraei, M. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and universities: A study of top 10 world universities' websites. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 440-447.
31. Rygh, K. (2018). Designing tangible tools to support collaboration in the co-design of healthcare services.
32. Sanders, E. B.N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-Design, 4(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
33. Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2018). Structuring roles in research through design collaboration.
34. Smedley, S., & Hoskins, K. (2020). Finding a place for Froebel's theories: Early years’ practitioners’ understanding and enactment of learning through play. Early Child Development and Care, 190(8), 1202-1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1525706
35. UNICEF. (2004). The state of the world’s children 2004. New York, NY: UNICEF House.
36. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1998). World declaration on higher education for the twenty-first century, for vision and action. In World Conference on Higher Education, Paris, 9 October.
37. Villanueva-Paredes, G. X., Juarez-Alvarez, C. R., Cuya-Zevallos, C., Mamani-Machaca, E. S., & Esquicha-Tejada, J. D. (2024). Enhancing Social Innovation Through Design Thinking, Challenge-Based Learning, and Collaboration in University Students. Sustainability, 16(23), 10471. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310471