scholarly journals Critical Reflections on the Surface, Pedagogical and Epistemological Features of the Design Studio under the “New Normal” Conditions

2020 ◽  
pp. 25-36
Author(s):  
Derya Yorgancioglu
Keyword(s):  
Design Education ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Architectural Design ◽  
Design Studio ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Critical Reading ◽  
Pedagogical Tools ◽  
Studio Pedagogy ◽  
The One ◽  
Pedagogy Literature

This study aims to make a critical reading on the constraints and potentials that emerge through the transition from face-to-face to screen-to-screen teaching and learning experiences in design education during the COVID-19 pandemic. By making a critical reading of current discussions, mostly in narrative surveys, on architectural design education, it is attempted to re-contextualize the emerging concepts of the remote teaching and learning to the broader context of design studio pedagogy literature. The theoretical framework of the study is based on the model developed by Shaffer (2003) regarding the three main elements of the design studio pedagogy as (1) “surface structures”, (2) “pedagogical forms” and (3) “epistemological principles.” The study revealed that the current situation, on the one hand, opened the ways for us to test “new” tools, methods and experiences of teaching and learning, and on the other hand, allowed us to better understand the potentials and well-functioning aspects of the “existing” pedagogical models. Rather than reducing the discussions on remote teaching and learning to a ‘technology-driven’ paradigm change in design education, future research should focus on the effects of changing pedagogical tools and practices on the manifold dimensions of ‘human learning’, which in turn will have implications for the epistemology of design pedagogy.

Architecture Education and the Return to the Humanities

2018 ◽  
pp. 271-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Foong Peng Veronica Ng
Keyword(s):  
Design Education ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Architectural Design ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Design Studio ◽  
Architecture Education ◽  
The Real ◽  
Bachelor Of Science ◽  
Motivation For Learning ◽  
Architectural Design Studio

Literature on current architectural pedagogy have posited the issue that architectural education lacked change and questioned whether current studio teaching provides adequate design-thinking education and connection to the real world. The increasing importance on the relationship between architecture, community, and place sets a backdrop as a catalyst for improvement within the field, particularly in how this relationship frames the teaching and learning within the design studio. Using an architectural design studio module conducted in the Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Architecture programme at Taylor's University, this chapter discusses the principles for an alternative design studio pedagogy and the values it brings about. The author argues that design education underpinned by “people” and “place” engages students' increased interesting and motivation for learning, with the awareness and sensitivities to the real and scholarly setting, hence bridging the gap between reality and education.

Design Education through Facilitating Student-Centred Learning

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Harsha Munasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Construction ◽  
Design Education ◽  
Design Studio ◽  
Research Focus ◽  
Pedagogical Tool ◽  
Studio Pedagogy ◽  
Teachers And Students ◽  
Student Centred Learning ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Fine Tune

Student disengagement in the architecture design studio is our research-focus. Design teachers complain that their multitasking students are not interested in learning, whereas the industry complains that the products of design schools fall short of their expectations. Having observed student disengagement in design studio as a cause for this schism, we tested ways to bring students back to learn-through-application. Among the reasons for their demotivation, we found, is the gradual drifting of design studio pedagogy towards stereotyping, moulding students to design a final product rather than inspiring them to fine-tune a design process. Our hypothesis is that if the design studio includes its participants in the learn-ing process, their engagement in the studio can be improved. We tested various methods of improving the design studio pedagogy, the most tested pedagogical tool in architecture school by providing an open forum for knowledge-construction and dissemination. Our major breakthrough came when the students were made to feel that they were included in shaping their learning exercises. Our quest is to test the strength of such learner-centred design studio, in which responsibilities to knowledge-construction and dissemination could be shared. Our qualitative research methods included observation and participatory observation of design studios and depth-interviews of teachers and students at several schools. We also conducted experimental design studios to test the hypothesis of collaborative studio, and found that more we include the students and more they learn. Keywords: Design-pedagogy; Design-studio; knowledge-construction; Learner-centred-teaching

Towards a Personalised Learning in Basic Design Studio: The use of Neuropsychological Tests

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (11) ◽  
pp. 200-204
Author(s):  
Aktan Acar
Keyword(s):  
Educational Psychology ◽  
Neuropsychological Tests ◽  
Design Education ◽  
Architectural Design ◽  
Instructional Methods ◽  
Design Studio ◽  
Basic Design ◽  
Key Factors ◽  
Personalised Learning ◽  
Learning Domains

Basic design education was conventionally structured around standardised lesson plans and instructional methods. Although each architectural school considers itself as an ecole, the content and the methods of basic design courses mostly follow a particular layout. The principles or qualities, elements and compositional rules of design constitute the content, whereas the methods can vary according to the instructors. These content and dependent methods consider students as passive receivers, whereas students of basic architectural design course should be active learners, participants and even contributors to the process. Hence, it is of importance to consider the students as individuals with particular skills and learning domains. The characteristics of each student should be depicted. In this way, it could be possible develop personalised learning methods and more active and productive basic design studios. This study aims to present methods of educational psychology, particularly neuropsychological tests as key factors of personalised learning in studios. Keywords: Basic design studio, educational psychology, neuropsychological tests.

scholarly journals Immateriality in Design and Pedagogy

2019 ◽  
pp. 68-71
Author(s):  
James F. Eckler
Keyword(s):  
Design Education ◽  
Architectural Design ◽  
Design Studio ◽  
Educational Setting ◽  
Instructional Models ◽  
Micro Scale ◽  
Virtual Spaces ◽  
Conventional Design ◽  
Architectural Design Studio

Instructional models are increasingly online, remote, and accessible whenever convenient, ostensibly leaving the conventional design studio behind. What are the consequences of design education without a place of its own — the studio? What are the consequences if architecture Schools resist the pressures to move to a remote platform? The Architectural design studio is unique educational setting in which Information doesn’t flow in a single direction, from professor to student. Instead, it is exchanged in complex patterns of dialogue and production that form the foundation of a micro-scale community. the quality of the education is predicated on the interaction among members of this community. This presents a challenge to the virtual spaces of education that are increasingly becoming the norm. And, while virtual spaces and places of education have not yet fully assimilated the design studio, this does not mean the studio can’t leverage advantages of these emergent grounds of discourse.

scholarly journals The Metaphoric Perceptions of Architectural Design Students On The Concept Of Jury System In Architectural Design Education

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 35-39
Author(s):  
Elvan Elif Özdemir ◽  
Fulya Pelin Cengizoglu
Keyword(s):  
Design Education ◽  
Architectural Design ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Learning By Doing ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Design Studio ◽  
Learning And Teaching ◽  
Design Students ◽  
Jury System ◽  
Architectural Design Education

The core of the architectural curriculum is based on the design studio which focuses on learning by doing. The learning process in the design studio is takes place in critic sessions. These sessions are kind of communication of ideas and transmitting of knowledge from instructor to student. In contrast to other disciplines, in the architectural design education the evaluation and the assessment are the important part of the learning and teaching process. The Jury system is a traditional architectural learning assessment tool. In this system the student present his/her work in the front of the jury and get feedback or criticism. According to Webster (2006), Jury is the most performative stage of education where the student and agency (the discipline of architecture-as represented by the critics) actually interact. (Webster, 2006). The aim of this study was to reveal the perceptions of architectural design students’ about the ‘Jury system’ as an grading system in architectural design studios. The participants for this study included second, third and fourth grade architectural design  students enrolled in the Department of Architecture  at the Faculty of Architecture of Mersin University during the 2014-2015 school year. To collect data, each participant was asked to complete the prompt “A jury is like . . . …because . . . …..”  . Phenomenological design was used in the study. The content analysis technique was used to analyze and interpret the study data. The detailed discussion will be presented in full paper.

scholarly journals Intuition in the Design Studio: A Perspective on Student’s Creativity and Design Process

2021 ◽  
pp. 37-48
Author(s):  
Zeynep Ozge Yalcin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Design Process ◽  
Design Education ◽  
Architectural Design ◽  
Rational Approach ◽  
Design Studio ◽  
Design Problems ◽  
Final Project ◽  
Scientific Approach ◽  
Architectural Design Studio ◽  
Architectural Knowledge

In the twentieth century, as a result of the transition to a scientific approach in design, intuition lost its validity and design became a rational act. In well-defined problems, the design process could be structured with this scientific approach, however, in an ill-defined structure, rationality needs to be combined with intuition to analyzing the design problems, decisions making and generate solutions by supporting the creativity of design students. In this respect, intuition can assist to strengthen and develop the required abilities during the process. Accordingly, the aim is to understand the role of intuition, how students use it to work creatively through sketches, and conceptual ideas, and the problematic process of transformation into architectural knowledge in the design process. The study carried out a literature review to draw an understanding of the dimensions of intuition and its role in the architectural design studio. The results of the study demonstrate that intuition has a crucial role in the design process. Relatedly, the lack of intuition becomes problematic, due to the non-conveyable character that it cannot find a place for itself in the design education in terms of crits from tutors, and alteration of intuition into concrete representations leads to a gap between intuition and the final project. Furthermore, these problems could be eliminated through the coherent use of two features which are rational approach and intuition. In this respect, intuition, creativity, and rationality is needed to perform together in order to achieve success by deciphering the potentials of the project through the process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document