The Difficulties of DESIGN TRAIN-ing
Keywords:
Downloads
Abstract
This study is proposed within the framework of the “Designtrain” project.* First year architecture students have difficulties to adapt to the new language of architectural discourse because of their individual capabilities and adequacies or because of the departments’ methodology of teaching. This study, which has been based on ten architecture departments in Turkey, has been formed to reveal these difficulties from the students’ point of view by means of a survey. This survey consists of interpretative questions that are related to the pre-requisites of vocational education, difficulties in learning, the evaluation of students’ comprehension of basic design principles and various difficulties of educational process.
Downloads
References
Blumrich J. F. (1970). Design, Science, New Series, 168 (3939), 1551-1554.
Google Scholar CrossrefBusatoa, V. V., Prinsb, F. J., Elshouta, J. J. and Hamakera, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher educatio, Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1057-1068.
Google Scholar CrossrefCartier, P. (2011). Most valuable aspects of educational expectations of the students in design education, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, WCES, 15, 2187–2191.
Google Scholar CrossrefChen J.D., Heylighen A., & Neuckermans H. (2006). Learning Design Teaching,In: Al-Qawasmi Vasquez de Velasco G. J. (eds), Changing Trends in Architectural Design Education, Proceedings of CSAAR 2006--First International Conference of the Center for the Study of Architecture in the Arab Region (CSAAR), Rabat, Morocco, 14-16 nov 2006, 577-588
Google Scholar CrossrefCross N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227. doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
Google Scholar CrossrefCross N. (1991). Research in design thinking, Design Studies, 12, 3–10
Google Scholar CrossrefCrysler, C. G. (1995). Critical Pedagogy and Architectural Education, Journal of Architectural Education, 48( 4), 208-217
Google Scholar CrossrefDanacı, H. M.( 2015). Creativity and knowledge in architectural education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1309 – 1312
Google Scholar CrossrefDemirkan H. & Afacan, Y. (2012). Assessing creativity in design education: Analysis of creativity factors in the first-year design studio, Design Studies, 33, 262-278. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.11.005
Google Scholar CrossrefDorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its Application, Design Studies, 32, 521-532.
Google Scholar CrossrefDorst K. & Dijkhuis J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16 (2), 261-274.
Google Scholar CrossrefFarivarsadri,G. (2001). A Critical View On Pedagogical Dimension Of Introductory Design In Architectural Education, AEE, -Architectural Education Exchange, Architectural Educators: Responding to Change, 11-12 September 2001, Cardiff, England. http://cebe.cf.ac.uk/aee/pdfs/farivarsadrig1.pdf .
Google Scholar CrossrefFarsidesa, T. & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: the roles of personality, intelligence, and application, Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1225–1243
Google Scholar CrossrefGlanville R. (1999). Researching design and designing research, Design Issues, 15 (2), Design Reserach, 80-91.
Google Scholar CrossrefGlasser, D. E. (2000). Reflections on architectural education, Journal of Architectural Education, 53:4, 250-252. doi: 10.1162/104648800564662
Google Scholar CrossrefLawson, B (1997). How designers think: the design process demystified, Oxford: Architectural Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefOxman, R. (1999) Educating the designerly thinker, Design Studies, 20(2) 105–122.
Google Scholar CrossrefOxman, R. (2004) Think-maps: teaching design thinking in design education, Design Studies, 25, 63–91. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00033-4
Google Scholar CrossrefPolanyi M. (2009). The tacit dimension, with a new foreword by Amartya Sen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar CrossrefRoberts, A. (2006). Cognitive styles and student progression in architectural design education, Design Studies 27 167-181. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.07.001
Google Scholar CrossrefSchon, D (1985) The design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications.
Google Scholar CrossrefSchön, D. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 1990
Google Scholar CrossrefQuayle M. (1985). Idea book for teaching design. Mesa: Arizona, PDA Publisher Corporation, 109
Google Scholar CrossrefSoh, K. (2017) Fostering student creativity through tutor behaviors, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 58–66 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2016.11.002
Google Scholar CrossrefUlusoy, Z. (1999) To design versus to understand design: the role of graphic representations and verbal expressions, Design Studies, 20, 123–130.PII: S0142-694X(98)00030-1
Google Scholar CrossrefDownloads
Published
Almetric
Dimensions
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
All articles are published under Creative Commons copyright (CC BY). Authors hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles as the original source is cited.
