Mimari tasarım eğitimi tasarım bilgisi bağlamında stüdyo eleştirileri

Abstract

ÖZET Bu çalışma mimari tasarım stüdyosunda proje yürütücüsünün öğrenciye ilettiği bilginin tanımlanmasına yönelik bir araştırmadır.Tasarlamanın nasıl öğrenildiğini ve tasarlamanın temelini oluşturan bilginin yapısı ve içeriğini açıklayabilmek üzere, bu bilginin kaynağına yani proje yürütücüsünün incelenmesine yer verilmektedir. Mimarlık bir meslek olarak kabul edilmesine karşın, onun temel de neyimi olan tasarlamanın bilgisi çok tanımlanmış bir alan oluştura mamaktadır. Gelecek kuşakların yetişmesi açısından mesleğin bilgisinin açıklıklığa kavuşturulması gerekmekte dir. Bu amaca yönelik olarak araştırma üç aşamadan oluşmuştur. Bunlar %. Tasarım bilgisini öznel ve nesnel yönleriyle ele alan bir yaklaşım çerçevesinde proje yürütücüsü-öğrenci etkileşimini açıklayabilecek bir modelin geliştirilmesi, Geliştirilen model çerçevesinde ampirik çalışmaların gerçekleştirilmesi,. Modelin ampirik çalışmalardan elde edilen bulgularla temellendirilmesidir. Çalışmanın giriş bölümünde, bilgi-üygulama ilişkileri çer çevesinde mimari çevrenin oluşumuna değinilmekte, mesleğin bilgisinin ve bu bilginin nasıl edinildiğinin araştırılma- sı gerektiği üzerinde, durulmaktadır. ikinci bölümde, çalışma alanının tanımlanmasına yer verilmektedir. Stüdyonun genel eğitim içindeki yeri ele alınmakta ve stüdyo eleştirilerinin önemine değinilmektedir. Eleştiriler aracılığıyla, tasarım bilgisinin yapısı ve içeriğinin incelenebileceği belirtilmektedir, üçüncü bölümde, bu çalışmanın temellerini oluşturan ilgili literatürün tanıtılması yer al maktadır. Stüdyonun kuramına temel oluşturabilecek çalışmalar arasında, tasarım eğitimi araştırmaları ile. bilişim alanında geliştirilmiş kuram ve modeller özetlenmektedir. Dördüncü bölüm, tasarım bilgisi bağlamında proje yürütücüsü-öğrenci etkileşimini tanımlayan bir modelin tanıtılma sına ve bu modele dayalı olarak gerçekleştirilen uygulama çalışmalarının açıklanmasına yöneliktir. Beşinci bölüm araştırmanın bulgularına ilişkindir.. Bulgular, proje yürü tücülerinin sözlü açıklamalarını, gerçekte stüdyoda nasıl bir deneyimin yaşandığını ve öğrencilerin eğitime ve ta - şarlamaya ilişkin görüşlerini içermektedir. Çalışmanın son bölümünde, bu araştırmada benimsenen yaklaşımın ve geliştirilen modelin bulgularla temellendirilme- sine ve konunun tasarım eğitimi araştırmaları içindeki yerine değinilmekte, gelecekte yapılabilecek araştırmalara ilişkin öneriler tartışılmaktadır.

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN EDUCATION : Design Knowledge Cummunicated in Studio Critiques. SUMMARY Documented in this dissertation is an investigation of design knowledge as it is communicated to the student in the design studio. Very little is known about the exper tise of the architect and how this expertise is acquired. There is a long standing view in architectural education that knowledge and application are learned separately, knowledge in other classes and application in the design studio. However, it is proposed here that the student both acquires new knowledge as well as learns to apply this knowledge in the studio. Research is needed to describe what happens in the design studio and to build theory of the knowledge content and structure of the designer. Architecture is in need of a body of knowledge- and its essential prerequisite a body of theory-to justify its position as a profession. Still very little is known about what as a designer and profes sional the architect is most qualified and skilled at doing. The tacit nature of design knowledge has been under dis cussion for. a long time. As an entry point to this area of tacitness, it is chosen here to examine, in a descrip tive way, the structure and content of architectural de sign knowledge through studio critiques. For this purpose to be realized, the primary effort of this study is di rected toward the examination of the studio-master's knowledge, s/he being considered âs the source of this knowledge. The conceptual framework of the study is founded on an approach which handles the studio critiques as a communi cative, design as a thoughtful, education as a develop mental and knowledge as a personal phenomenon. Based on this approach, the research is conducted in three stages :. A model is proposed which aims at explaining the ge- neralizable (objective) and personal (subjective) at tributes of the studio-master's knowledge as it is com municated to the student through desk critiques.. Departing from this model, a survey has been carried out which comprises a questionnaire with the studio - masters and recordings of studio critiques, viii. The model is verified with data drawn from the survey. In the introductory chapter, a discussion is held on the interrelationship of knowledge and practice of architec - ture, and on the necessity of a body of theory to lay the foundations for the knowledge of design. The second chapter comprises the explanation of the ge neral scope of the dissertation, its objectives, and li mitations to the work. In the first part of this chapter-, it is stated that the design studio forms the largest com ponent of the architectural student's professional educa tion and the critique the core of the design studio. Possible areas of research relevant to the analysis of studio master-student exchanges through critiques are sys tematized and discussed. These are set out as the synchro nic and diachronic analysis of the role of the studio - master (the source), representation or language (codes), and design knowledge (the message) T The last one is chosen as the area of study and it is proposed that through an analysis of the critiques, it is possible to understand the nature and structure of design knowledge conveyed to the student. In the second part, objectives of the study are stated. These objectives can be summarized as follows :. To find out the essential characteristics of architec tural design education which can be geseralized to all studios and to all studio-masters,. To support the argument that design is teachable/learn- able and not merely an innate capacity, and provide basis for increasing the effectiveness of this education,. To describe the interactive/communicative nature of design critiques,. To emphasize the conceptual component of the concept/ image duality which can be seen as intrinsic to archie, tectural design knowledge,. To explore the nature and structure of design knowledge with its generalizable (objective) and personal (subjec tive ) attributes. The last part of this chapter deals with the limitations of the work. These include limitations to the area of research, method chosen, the type of critique chosen, and limitations to the desk critiques when conducting the survey. The third chapter, introduces literature relevant to the study for the purpose of building a theoretical framework. The first part of this chapter brings examples from the history of architecture education with emphasis on the ixrelationship of knowledge with application. The second part deals with work conducted in the field of architec - tural design education. Research on studio, design process, studio-master, student, and design knowledge is summarized. The last part of this chapter discusses theories on learn ing and thinking. After a brief history of the cognitive studies, work conducted in the fields of perception, concept formation/concept acquisition, linguistics and psycholin - guistics, problem solving and knowledge are summarized. In the fourth chapter, method of the study is discussed and a model representative of the studio master-student exchanges in the studio is proposed. The first part of this chapter states the approach on which this work is founded. The second part deals with the method of the survey. In the third part, a model is developed which aims at explaning the generalizable (objective) and personal (subjective) attributes of the studio-master's knowledge as it is communicated to the student through the desk cri tiques. This model is shown in Figure 1. The studio-master's approach to architecture, his/her de finition of the design process, understanding of education, and way of communicating with the student are considered as comprising the personal attributes of design knowledge. These attributes make up the knowledge base of the studio- master and determine its content. On the other hand, the structure of design knowledge and how this knowledge is represented in the memory, ways of conveying this knowledge to the student, and the language or representative tools used are considered as comprising the generalizable attributes of design knowledge. Know ledge is thought to come out in two different forms, the first being declarative and the second procedural. Declara tive knowledge deals with the description of objects or events, their attributes and the relation between these objects or events and their attributes. Procedural know - ledge is the knowledge of how to perform or how to operate. The organization of knowledge in the memory is considered to be in units (schemas) as proposed by the schema theory, and related to each other with either normative or des criptive rules. Knowledge is conveyed in different forms: in the form of questions, explanations, analogies, simula tion, and interpretation. Knowledge is represented in the form of images, gestures, words, schemes, drawings, and 3-d models. The fourth part of this chapter explains the survey con - ducted and techniques used in the analysis of data. The survey has been carried out in two stages, the first one a questionnaire given to studio-masters and students, and the second, video and/or audio recordings of desk critiques. Questionnaires are forwarded to studio-masters from different schools thought to have different traditions: I.T.Ü., C.M.U., and M.I.T. Critiques of studio- master' su 0) 4J +1.w E id C (0 M B / M 0) >.H 0) Ü o ft II W Q D B W I» I O CO 4J U u OJ >rl 60 >H TJ> «H OJ O l-l OJ. 3 b. o to B _ jrf CO l> c T CO t- 3.O a u S PVl T I to.8 0) 00.o ı-t c o rC.a.H o 0) e.3 4J u td u 0) e 0) `O 3 4-1 CO i, O) 4J.s ?s 4-1 CO H S 00 xıfrom three different schools - I.T.U., M.S.U., and C.M.U.- have been recorded. Questionnaires are considered as what studio-masters profess, and recordings as what they do in reality. Multiple response technique is used in the analy sis of questionnaires and protocol analysis technique is applied to the protocols collected in studio recordings. The fifth chapter deals with the findings of the survey. The first part of the chapter provides data on the genera- lizable and personal attributes of design knowledge as professed by the studio- masters in the questionnaires, and students1 views on problems in their acquisition of design knowledge and about how they design. The second part of the chapter provides data on how the studio-master com municates with the student and what is conveyed through the critiques, based on protocols collected in the studio. The final chapter handles a discussion on the findings of the survey with concluding remarks and proposals concerning possible areas of research for future studies. The validity of the model developed in this study has been verified with the findings of the survey. In summary, these findings can be stated as. follows :. The studio critique is a communicative activity which has varying degrees of interaction between the studio- master and the student, depending both on the characte ristics of the studio-master and the student, and on the nature of the design problem.. Studio-masters have emphasized the thoughtful nature of design activity. Hence, learning design is identified with acquiring a systematized thought process.. The development of the student's thought process and his/ her personality are considered as the most important phenomena which the studio-masters aim at realizing during their critiques.. Architectural design knowledge can be examined within a context which considers both the personal (subjective) and generalizable (objective) attributes of this knowledge.. The findings of the research have shown that the studio- masters' approach to architecture, design, and education and their way of communicating with the student can vary. Hence, these make up the personal attributes of design knowledge.. It has been found that studio-masters' critiques comprise both declarative and procedural knowledge. This knowledge is conveyed in units made up of interrelated concepts or design domains. These units are related to each other mostly, with normative, and in some cases, with descrip tive rules. Design knowledge is communicated mostly in xiithe form of interpretation, followed by coaching, asking questions, `showing solutions, giving explanations, re marking to unlit points of the student's solution, re minding his/her previous solutions or principles, draw ing his/her attention to problems, remarking to the negative and positive aspects of his/her solution, making analogies, showing examples, introducing scenarios, and finally.holding discussions on the contradictory aspects of the students proposal. Knowledge is represented mostly in the form of words, gestures, images, and schematic drawings by the studio-master. These are con sidered to make up the generalizable attributes of design knowledge. The last part of the final chapter discusses some possible areas of study for future research. It has been stated that research is needed in the following areas :. Investigation of visual and conceptual attributes of de sign knowledge! and of the structure of their interrelation ship is necessary.. Findings concerning the nature of design knowledge used in the studio can provide basis for the development of the content of other courses.. The knowledge structure of the student should also be explicated in order to bring a comprehensive analysis of the communication between the studio-master and the student. Xlll