Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 3

Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio

Pages
41–52
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The present study proposes that in such spatial transformations, it would be possible to attain user satisfaction when decision-makers follow participatory processes in which all groups that would be effected can participate.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The decision-makers choices regarding the design and construction of educational spaces have a direct impact on the academic culture.
📊
Key Findings & Data:With regard to the design studios, the physical conditions of the studio spaces specifically act as the main element that creates the studio culture.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The present study proposes that in such spatial transformations, it would be possible to attain user satisfaction when decision-makers follow participatory processes in which all groups that would be effected can participate.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The decision-makers choices regarding the design and construction of educational spaces have a direct impact on the academic culture. With regard to the design studios, the physical conditions of the studio spaces specifically act as the main element that creates the studio culture. The present study aims at understanding the relationship between the spatial transformation and the expectations of the students. Following a post occupancy approach, we asked, “What can we learn from collection of individual evaluations of students’ on transformed studio environment?” and “Where does this knowledge fit in the readily available literature on built environment and learning spaces?” Twenty-five students are asked to write texts on their expectations related to a transformed studio in which they were receiving education at the time of the study. The texts are first examined for the frequency of the words used via cloud analysis. Following that analysis, two independent evaluators identified the phenomena in the texts and conducted a content analysis. The student expectations are classified into two main groups: Learning Experiences and Spatial Experiences. Learning experience involves three subgroups namely variation in work practices, creativity and social interactions and spatial experience is made up of physical comfort and furniture subgroups. Although during the spatial transformation, some improvement have been made, they did not completely fulfill the students’ expectations. The present study proposes that in such spatial transformations, it would be possible to attain user satisfaction when decision-makers follow participatory processes in which all groups that would be effected can participate.

🔖

Cite This Article

KEPEZ, O. (2017). Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 3, 41–52. https://ajindex.com/articles/143929

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Alper, M. (2004). Dünü ve bügünü ile Cibali tütün fabrikası. In S. F. Göncüoğlu (Ed.), Sempozyum bildirileri (pp. 33–40). İstanbul: Kadir Has Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  2. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from http://scholar.google. com/scholar?q=Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate&btnG=&hl=en&num=20&as_ sdt=0%2C22 Boyer, E. L., & Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building community: A new future for architecture education and practice: a special report. Princeton, N.J: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348.
  3. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed Methods approaches (Third Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Çubukcu, E., & Işıtan, Z. N. (2011). Does student behavior differ in relation to perception / evaluation of campus environments? A post-occupancy research in two university campuses. Gazi University Journal of Science, 24(3), 547–558.
  4. Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The Story of practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  5. Demirbaş, O., & Demirkan, H. (2000) Privacy dimensions: A case study in the interior architecture design studio. Journal of Environmental Pscychology, 20, 53–64.
  6. Demirkan, H., & Demirbaş, O. (2008). Focus on the learning styles of freshman design students. Design Studies, 29, 254–266.
  7. Devlin, A. S. (2010). What Americans build and why: psychological perspectives. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Dockrell, J. E., & Shield, B. (2004). Children’s perceptions of their acoustic environment at school and at home. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(6), 2964–2973.
  9. Dülgeroğlu, Y., Aydınlı, S., Pulat, G., Yılmaz, Z., & Özgünler, M. (1996). Toplu konutlarda nitelik sorunu. Ankara:
  10. Toplu Konut İdaresi. Duran-Narucki, V. (2008). School building condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York City public schools: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Pscychology, 28, 278–286.
  11. Dursun, P., & Özsoy, A. (2008). How can architects learn from their own experiences? A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Archi