SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Design Studio / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 1

A Thematic and Context-Based Design Studio Approach: A Case Study of the Academy of Art and Performance Studio

Filiz Karakuş(ANKARA YILDIRIM BEYAZIT UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7562-3435
Ümit Gökhan Çiçek0009-0005-2344-3343
Fatma Zehra Süer(ANKARA YILDIRIM BEYAZIT UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2896-3098
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-20
🏛️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 study contributes to architectural education by proposing a structured analytical framework for evaluating thematic studio outputs and by highlighting the pedagogical challenges of integrating sensory and experiential design approaches into studio practice.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study presents a qualitative, design-based investigation of a thematic, context-based architectural design studio titled “Academy of Art and Performance,” conducted in Gaziantep and hosted by the Department of Architecture at Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The studio was structured as a vertical design environment that integrated second- and third-year students and was guided by a sensory-driven thematic framework centered on “sound” as a conceptual driver.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study contributes to architectural education by proposing a structured analytical framework for evaluating thematic studio outputs and by highlighting the pedagogical challenges of integrating sensory and experiential design approaches into studio practice.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Gaziantep · architecture education · sounds of the city

Abstract

This study presents a qualitative, design-based investigation of a thematic, context-based architectural design studio titled “Academy of Art and Performance,” conducted in Gaziantep and hosted by the Department of Architecture at Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University. The studio was structured as a vertical design environment that integrated second- and third-year students and was guided by a sensory-driven thematic framework centered on “sound” as a conceptual driver. The research examines how thematic design approaches influence students’ spatial thinking, contextual awareness, and architectural outcomes. The methodology is based on a qualitative thematic analysis of nine student projects, supported by studio documentation, including drawings, models, jury evaluations, and instructor observations. An analytical framework comprising five evaluation themes—urban and cultural context, sound-based conceptualization, integration of production, performance, and education, form and spatial organization, and heritage reinterpretation—was developed and applied through a comparative matrix. The findings show that although most projects effectively engaged with cultural context and heritage reinterpretation, sensory-driven themes, such as sound, were often treated at a conceptual level rather than translated into technically articulated spatial strategies. This indicates a gap between abstract thematic thinking and architectural resolution. The study contributes to architectural education by proposing a structured analytical framework for evaluating thematic studio outputs and by highlighting the pedagogical challenges of integrating sensory and experiential design approaches into studio practice.

🔖

Cite This Article

Karakuş, F., Çiçek, Ü. G., Süer, F. Z. (2026). A Thematic and Context-Based Design Studio Approach: A Case Study of the Academy of Art and Performance Studio. Journal of Design Studio, Volume: 8 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1843020

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (27)

  1. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
  2. Ciravoğlu A. (2001), Mimari Tasarım Eğitiminde Workshop-Stüdyo Paralelliği Üzerine, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul.
  3. Deamer, P. (2020). Design pedagogy: The new architectural studio and its consequences. Architecture_MPS, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.amps.2020v11i1.002.
  4. Dutton, T. A. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1987.10758461.
  5. Erzen J. N. (1976), Eğitimin Estetik Olarak Yorumu ve Mimarlık Eğitimi, 176-185.
  6. Hettithanthri, U., & Hansen, P. (2022). Design studio practice in the context of architectural education: A narrative literature review. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 2937–2960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09694-2.
  7. Hıdıroğlu, F. M. (2019). Tarihi Bir Kentin Morfolojik Gelişiminde Plan Kararlarının Etkisi, MsC. Thesis, İstanbul: Mimar Sinan Üniversitesi.
  8. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Koester, R.J. (2006), Centers for Regenerative Studies: Graduate Studio Experiences in Education for Sustainable Design, Proceedings of PLEA2006, Switzerland, 1:659-664.
  10. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
  11. Leach, N. (1997). Rethinking architecture: A reader in cultural theory. Routledge.
  12. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell. (Original work published 1974).
  13. Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (Eds.). (2000). Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism. E & FN Spon.
  14. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. Rizzoli.
  15. Oxman R. (1990), ‘Prior Knowledge in Design, A Dynamic Knowledge-Based Model of Design and Creativity’ Design Studies, Butterworth- Heinemann. Vol.11, No.1, (17-28).
  16. Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. Wiley.
  17. Ruskin, J. (1849). The seven lamps of architecture. Smith, Elder & Co.
  18. Salama, A. M. (2015). Seeking new forms of pedagogy in architectural education. Field, 5(1), 7–27.
  19. Schafer, R. M. (1977). The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Destiny Books.
  20. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
  21. Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.
  22. Sönmez, M. (2018). Gaziantep kentinin geçmişten günümüze alansal gelişimi. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Ayıntâb Araştırmaları Dergisi, 115.
  23. Till, J. (2009). Architecture Depends. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  24. UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Paris.
  25. Viollet-le-Duc, E. (1854–1868). Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle. Paris.
  26. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.
  27. Webster, H. (2008). Architectural education after Schön: Cracks, blurs, boundaries and beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2008.03020063