İnternet Tabanlı Tasarım Stüdyolarının Öğrenme Stilleri Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Teknolojinin tasarım stüdyolarına entegrasyonu, tasarım pedagojisi araştırması uzun süredir meşgul eden sorular üretir. COVID-19 salgını sonrası dünya çapında uzaktan eğitime geçişle birlikte, tasarım stüdyolarının geleceği yine tartışmalı bir gündem haline gelmiştir. Tasarım stüdyosunun geleceğini tartışmak için öncelikle internet tabanlı stüdyoların potansiyeli anlaşılmalıdır. Bu amaçla yola çıkan bu çalışma, internet tabanlı tasarım stüdyolarını kavramsal olarak sınıflandırmaktadır. Daha sonra hangi öğrenme yöntemlerini desteklediklerini anlamak amacıyla, çıktıları bilimsel araştırmalarla değerlendirilmiş tasarım stüdyosu örnekleri incelenmektedir. Böylelikle öğrenme stilleri ile internet tabanlı stüdyo modelleri eşleştirilebilmektedir. Bu sınıflandırma ve inceleme ile internet tabanlı modellerin gelecekteki tasarım stüdyosu için sunduğu potansiyeller ortaya konulmaktadır. Bu değerlendirmenin sonucunda, farklı öğrenme stillerini desteklediği ortaya çıkan bu stüdyo modellerinin eğitime nasıl entegre edilebileceği ve yüz yüze tasarım stüdyosuna katkılarının neler olabileceği tartışmaya açılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sanal tasarım stüdyosu
• e-tasarım stüdyosu
• hibrit tasarım stüdyosu
• harmanlanmış tasarım stüdyosu
• öğrenme stili envanteri

The Evaluation of Internet-Based Design Studios in the Context of Learning Styles

Öz

The integration of technology into design studios generates questions that have long occupied design pedagogy research. With the COVID-19 pandemic and the worldwide transition to distance education, the future of design studios is again a controversial agenda. In order to discuss the future of the design studio, first, the potential of Internet-based studios must be understood. Starting with this purpose, this study classifies the Internet-based design studios conceptually. Afterward, design studio samples and their evaluated outcomes based on scientific research are examined with the purpose of understanding which learning methods they supported. Thus, Internet-based studio models that can be matched with learning styles can be discussed over their potential to a future studio. As a result of this evaluation, it is discussed how these studio models, which are revealed to support different learning styles, can be integrated into education and what their contribution can be to the face-to-face design studio.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Virtual design studio
• e-design studio
• hybrid design studio
• blended design studio
• learning style inventory

Kaynakça

1. Atiker, B. (2012). Understanding The “Hybrid” Media in Design Education. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication - TOJDAC 2(2), pp. 100-107.
2. Bonk, C.J. & Graham, C.R. (2012). The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs, John Wiley & Sons.
3. Broadfoot, O. & Bennett, R. (2003). “Design Studios: Online? Comparing Traditional Face-to-face Design Studio Education with Modern Internet-based Design Studios”. Apple University Consortium Academic and Developers Conference Proceedings. Sydney, pp. 9-21.
4. Brown, R. (2003). Blending learning: Rich experiences from a rich picture. Training and Development in Australia, 30 (3), 14-17.
5. Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for itstechnological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), 18–28.
6. Demirbas, O. O. & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles. Design Studies, Vol 24 No 5 pp. 437-456.
7. Finn, A., & Bucceri, M. (2004). A case study approach to blended learning, retrieved January 15, 2008 from http://www.centra.com/download/whitepapers/CaseStudy_BlendedLearning.pdf.
8. Freitas, M. R. & Ruschel, R. C. (2013). What Is Happening to Virtual and Augmented Reality Applied To Architecture. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia. Singapore, 407–416.

9. Gross, M., & Do, E. (1999). Integrating digital media in design studio: Six paradigms. Proceedings of the American College Schools of Architecture Conference, Minneapolis, gub.
10. Gul, L. F. (2011). What we learnt from design teaching in collaborative virtual environments. Conference: Respectıng Fragıle Places 29th eCAADe Conference Proceedings At: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture (Slovenia).
11. Gul, L. F., Gu, N., & Williams, A. (2008). Virtual Worlds as a Constructivist Learning Platform: Evaluations of 3D Virtual Worlds on Design Teaching and Learning, ITCon, Special Issue: Special Issue Virtual and Augmented Reality in Design and Construction, vol.13, pp. 578-593.
12. Houghton, N. (2016). Six into one: The contradictory art school curriculum and how it came about. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12039.
13. Kensek, K., Noble, D., Schiler, M., & Tripathi, A. (2000). Augmented Reality: an application for architecture. Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering, Stanford, CA, 294-301.
14. Kieferle, J. B. & Herzberger, E. (2002). The “Digital year for Architects” Experiences with an Integrated Teaching Concept. In 20th eCAADe Conference Proceedings. Warsaw: Poland, pp.88–95.
15. Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306.
16. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
17. Livia, R. N. (2011). The virtual architectural studio — an experiment of online cooperation. Review of Applied Socio-Economic Research, 1, 38–46.
18. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw Hill.
19. Milovanovic, A., Kostic, M., Zoric, A., Ðord ̄evic ́ A., Pešic, M., Bugarski, J., Todorovic, D., Sokolovic, N. & Josifovski A. (2020). Transferring COVID-19 Challenges into Learning Potentials: Online Workshops in Architectural Education. Sustainability 12(17):7024.
20. Mitchell, W. J. & McCullough, M. (1991). Digital Design Media. USA: John Wiley & Sons.
21. Oxman, R. (2006). Re-thinking digital design. WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 90, 239- 247, WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (online) doi:10.2495/DARC060241
22. Oxman, R. (2008). Digital Architecture as a Challenge for Design Pedagogy: Theory, Knowledge, Models and Medium. Design Studies, 29: 99- 120.
23. Özgüven, Y., Şen Bayram, A. K., & Cantürk E. (2020). Mimari Tasarım Stüdyosunda Bir Tamir Deneyimi: COVID-19 ve Uzaktan Eğitim Süreci. [A Repair Experience in the Architectural Design Studio: COVID-19 and the Distance Education Process]. Ege Mimarlık 108(10), ss. 64-69. http://egemimarlik.org/108/10.pdf
24. Pak, B & Verbeke, J. (2012). Design studio 2.0: augmenting reflective architectural design learning, Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), Vol. 17, pg. 502-519, http://www.itcon.org/2012/32
25. Rodriguez, C., Hudson, R. & Niblock, C. (2018). Collaborative learning in architectural education: Benefits of combining conventional studio, virtual design studio and live projects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), pp. 337-353.
26. Salama, A. (1995) New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio. Raleigh, N.C.: Tailored Text.
27. Schnabel, M. A. (2011). The immersive virtual environment design studio. In X. Wang, & J. H. Tsai (Eds.), Collaborative design in virtual environments. Series intelligent systems, control and automation: science and engineering Vol. 48 (pp. 177–191). London: Springer.
28. Schnabel, M. A., Kvan, T., Kruijff, E. & Donath, D. (2001). The first virtual environment design studio. In 19th eCAADe Conference Proceedings. Helsinki, Finland, pp. 394–400.
29. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
30. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner (1st ed.). San Francisco: Wiley.
31. Steinø, N. & Khalid, S. (2017). The Hybrid Studio- Introducing Google+ as a Blended Learning Platform for Architectural Design Studio Teaching. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education. 5, (1), pp. 22-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.5278/ojs.jpblhe.v5i1.1562
32. Şahin, A. (2013). Mimarlık Eğitiminde Bir Stüdyo Yöntemi: Tasarla-Yap Stüdyosu. [A Studio Method in Architectural Education: Design-Build Studio]. (Unpublished Master Thesis), ITU, Institute of Science, Architecture, İstanbul.
33. Uluoğlu, B. (1990). Mimari Tasarım Eğitimi: Tasarım Bilgisi Bağlamında Stüdyo Eleştirileri. [Architectural Design Education: Studio Reviews in the Context of Design Knowledge]. (Unpublished Doctoral Disseration), ITU, Institute of Science, Architecture, İstanbul.
34. Url-1 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtual (last visited 16.01.2021)
35. Wang, X. (2009). Augmented Reality in Architecture and Design: Potentials And Challenges For Application. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 7(2), pp. 309–326.
36. Yorgancioglu, D. (2020). Critical Reflections on the Surface, Pedagogical and Epistemological Features of the Design Studio under the “New Normal” Conditions, Journal of Design Studio, V.2, N.1, pp 25-36.