SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mimarlık ve Yaşam / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

A Systematic Review of Sketching Factors in Architectural Education

Mimarlık Eğitiminde Eskizin Faktörlerinin Sistematik Bir İncelemesi

Ziba Sami(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-0861-8510
Yasemen Say Özer(YILDIZ TEKNİK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9497-9368
Pages
277–292
Publication Date
2025-08-31
🏛️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 findings highlight the pedagogical value of sketching in architectural education, providing insights for educators and researchers seeking to enhance design teaching methodologies and future research directions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Sketches play a significant role in architectural design.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study focuses on three main keywords (sketch, design, and architectural education), analyzing research published in the Scopus database from 1997 to 2024, a period of increasing interest in sketch-related research.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings highlight the pedagogical value of sketching in architectural education, providing insights for educators and researchers seeking to enhance design teaching methodologies and future research directions.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Mimarlık · Eskiz · Tasarım Süreci

Abstract

Sketches play a significant role in architectural design. During the past three decades, researchers have studied the characteristics of sketching to understand its different concepts and dimensions. This research aims to fill that gap by systematically reviewing the literature on sketching investigated in architecture, with a focus on the factors influencing sketching practices through a comprehensive analysis of thirty-three articles and book chapters. This study focuses on three main keywords (sketch, design, and architectural education), analyzing research published in the Scopus database from 1997 to 2024, a period of increasing interest in sketch-related research. Using the PRISMA framework and NVivo software, this study conducts a systematic review and qualitative analysis to synthesize existing knowledge on the role of sketches in design studios. The findings highlight the pedagogical value of sketching in architectural education, providing insights for educators and researchers seeking to enhance design teaching methodologies and future research directions.

Özet

Eskizler mimari tasarım sürecinde önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Son otuz yıl boyunca araştırmacılar, eskizin farklı kavram ve boyutlarını anlamak amacıyla çeşitli çalışmalar yürütmüşlerdir. Bu araştırma, mimarlık alanında eskiz üzerine yapılmış literatürü sistematik olarak tarayarak, otuz üç makale ve kitap bölümünü kapsayan kapsamlı bir analiz yoluyla, eskiz pratiğini etkileyen faktörlere odaklanmaktadır. Çalışma, eskizle ilgili araştırmalara ilginin arttığı bir dönem olan 1997-2024 yılları arasında Scopus veri tabanında yayımlanan araştırmaları analiz etmekte ve üç anahtar kelimeye (eskiz, tasarım ve mimarlık eğitimi) odaklanmaktadır. PRISMA rehberliğinde ve NVivo yazılımını kullanarak sistematik bir inceleme ve nitel bir analiz gerçekleştirilen bu çalışmada, eskizlerin tasarım stüdyolarındaki rolüne ilişkin mevcut bilgiler sentezlenmektedir. Bulguların, mimarlık eğitiminde eskiz yapmanın pedagojik değerini vurgularken, tasarım öğretim yöntemlerini geliştirmeyi amaçlayan eğitimciler ile araştırmacılar için önemli çıkarımlar sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sami, Z., Özer, Y. S. (2025). A Systematic Review of Sketching Factors in Architectural Education. Mimarlık ve Yaşam, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 277–292. https://doi.org/10.26835/my.1579172

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (65)

  1. Abd Manan, M. S., & Kennedy, B. (2022). Exploring Sketches as Conceptual Data: A Semiological Experiment on Moods Visualisation Among Architectural Students. Archnet-IJAR, 16(1), 203–221. doi: 10.1108/ARCH-05-2021-0132
  2. Agirbas, A. (2023). A Methodology For 3D Digital Sketching Practice In Undergraduate Architectural Education. Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, 22(2), 171–185. doi: 10.1386/adch_00073_1
  3. Ammon, S. (2017). Image-Based Epistemic Strategies In Modeling: Designing architecture after the digital turn. C. Gengnagel, E. Nagy, R. Stark & M. Schmidt (Ed.), Transdisciplinary Engineering Design Process (Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 28, pp. 177–205). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-56466-1_8
  4. Amoroso, N. (2016). Representing landscapes: Hybrid. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315618197
  5. Arnheim, R. (1993). Sketching and The Psychology of Design. Design Issues, 9(2), 15–19. doi: 10.2307/1511669
  6. Avotina, A., Karlsone, I., Urdzina-Derum, M., & Celmina-Keiran, A. (2023). Sketching As An External Representation Of Thinking Results And Processes In Education. Drawing: Research, Theory, Practice, 8(2), 295–310. doi: 10.1386/drtp_00122_1
  7. Bar-Eli, S. (2013). Sketching Profiles: Awareness To Individual Differences In Sketching As A Means Of Enhancing Design Solution Development. Design Studies, 34(4), 472–493. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.007
  8. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing In Multimodal Texts: A Social Semiotic Account of Designs For Learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195. doi:10.1177/0741088307313177
  9. Bresciani, S. (2019). Visual Design Thinking: A Collaborative Dimensions Framework To Profile Visualisations. Design Studies, 63, 92–124. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2019.04.001
  10. Buchanan, R. (2009). Thinking about Design: An Historical Perspective. Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences, May, 409–453. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-51667-1.50020-3
  11. Carlhian, J. P. (1979). The Ecole Des Beaux-Arts. Journal of Architectural Education, 33(2), 7–17. doi: 10.1080/10464883.1979.10758615
  12. Ceylan, S. (2019). A Case Study on The Change of Students’ Perception of Architectural Design Based on Their Knowledge of Digital Tools. International Journal of Design Education, 14(2), 1–16. doi: 10.18848/2325-128x/cgp/v14i02/1-16
  13. Ching, F. (1990). Drawing: A creative process. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  14. Clarkson, J., & Eckert, C. (Eds.) (2005). Design Process Improvement: A Review Of Current Practice. London: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-84628-061-0
  15. Cold, B. (1995). Tree of The Sketch. M. Pearce & M. Toy (Ed.), Educating architects (ss. 44–51). London: Academy Editions.
  16. Cross, N. (1999). Natural Intelligence In Design. Design Studies, 20(1), 25–39. doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(98)00026-x
  17. Dorst, K. (2011). The Core of “Design Thinking” And Its Application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
  18. Elaby, M., Mohamed, H., Wafa, M., & Sweilam, S. (2023). Impact of Full-Scale Models on Students’ Creativity In Basic Design Course. Creativity Studies, 16(2), 411–432. doi: 10.3846/cs.2023.15718
  19. Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying The Mind’s Eye: Sketching And Visual Cognition. Leonardo, 23(1), 117–126. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/601802.
  20. Frascari, M. (2009). Lines As Architectural Thinking. Architectural Theory Review, 14(3), 200–212. doi: 10.1080/13264820903341605
  21. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of Thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT.
  22. Goldschmidt, G. (1992). Serial Sketching: Visual Problem Solving In Designing. Cybernetics and Systems, 23(2), 191–219. doi: 10.1080/01969729208927457
  23. Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On Visual Design Thinking: The Vis Kids Of Architecture. Design Studies, 15(2), 158–174. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(94)90022-1
  24. Goldschmidt, G. (2011). Better, Not Catchier: Design Creativity Research in the Service of Value. In T. Taura & Y. Nagai (Eds.), Design Creativity 2010. Springer, London. doi: 10.1007/978-0-85729-224-7_5
  25. Goldschmidt, G. (2017). Manual Sketching: Why Is It Still Relevant? Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 28(May), 77–97. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56466-1_4
  26. Güngör, C., & Üstün, G. O. (2024). UVIR: Unprecedented Virtual-Intellectual Representations Thought And Imagined. In Novel Approaches to Urban Design and Architecture Education: Design Studio Practice and Pedagogy (pp. 34–60). doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2329-8.ch003
  27. Hanks, K., & Belliston, L. (1977). Draw! A Visual Approach to Thinking, Learning and Communicating. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufman.
  28. Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering. Science, Technology & Human Values, 16(4), 448–473. doi:10.1177/016224399101600402
  29. İnceoğlu, N., Gürer, T., & Çil, E. (1995). Sketches: A Medium for Thinking and Expression. İstanbul: Helikon.
  30. Javid, A. (2014). Creativity In Architecture Design Education: Design As Puzzle Solving. International Journal of Design Education, 8(2), 11–21. doi: 10.18848/2325-128x/cgp/v08i02/38463
  31. Jonson, B. (2005). Design Ideation: The Conceptual Sketch In The Digital Age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613–624. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2005.03.001
  32. Laseau, P. (2001). Graphic Thinking for Architects and Designers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  33. Lawson, B. (1990). How Designers Think. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture.
  34. Li, M., & Amoroso, N. (2023). An Early Look at Applications for Artificial Intelligence Visualization Software in Landscape Architecture. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, 2023(8), 543–553. doi: 10.14627/537740057
  35. Makowska, B. (2023). Contemporary Challenges In Freehand Drawing Education At The Faculties Of Architecture. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 21(1), 6–11.
  36. McGlynn, S., Smith, G., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., & Bentley, I. (2013). Visual appropriateness. In I. Bentley, A. Alcock, P. Murrain, S. McGlynn, & G. Smith, Responsive environments: A manual for designers (pp. 89–105). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780080516172-10
  37. Mao, X., Galil, O., Parrish, Q., & Sen, C. (2020). Evidence of Cognitive Chunking in Freehand Sketching During Design Ideation. Design Studies, 67, 1–26. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2019.11.009
  38. Mendoza-collazos, J. (2024). Enhanced Agency And The Visual Thinking of Design. Cognitive Semiotics, May, 1–19. doi: 10.1515/cogsem-2024-2004
  39. Merzdorf, H. E., Jaison, D., Weaver, M. B., Linsey, J., Hammond, T., & Douglas, K. A. (2023). Sketching Assessment In Engineering Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Engineering Education, 113(4), 872–893. doi: 10.1002/jee.20560
  40. Mittelberg, I., Schmitz, T. H., & Groninger, H. (2017). Operative Manufacts: Gestures as Embodied Sketches in the Early Stages of the Design Process. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, 28(May), 99–131. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56466-1_5
  41. Nancy, J. L. (2013). The pleasure in drawing (P. Armstrong, Trans.). New York: Fordham University Press. (First publication: 2000). http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x02tz
  42. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
  43. Nyka, L., Cudzik, J., & Urbanowicz, K. (2020). The CDIO Model In Architectural Education And Research By Design. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 18(2), 85–90.
  44. Pirrie, A., & Brown, J. B. (2011). Field/Work, Site, And Other Matters: Exploring Design Practice Across Disciplines. Policy Futures in Education, 9(5), 598–607. doi:10.2304/pfie.2011.9.5.589
  45. Purcell, T., & Gero, J. (1998). Drawings and the Design Process. Design Studies, 19(4), 389–430. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00015-5
  46. Putra, A. M., Hardiman, G., Sardjono, A. B., Madyatmadja, E. D., & Cahyandari, G. O. I. (2022). The Effect of Manual Sketching on Architectural Design Process in Digital Era. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 100(2), 413–422. https://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol100No2/10Vol100No2.pdf
  47. Roberts, J. C., Headleand, C. J., & Ritsos, P. D. (2017). Five Design-Sheets: Creative Design and Sketching For Computing and Visualisation. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55627-7
  48. Schmid-kirsch, A. (2010). Starting with a Cube as the Perfect Guide to Sketch Geometry in Design and Architecture. Journal for Geometry and Graphics, 14(1), 117–123.
  49. Schön, D., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of Seeing and their Functions in Designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(92)90268-F
  50. Schütze, M., Pierre, S., & Römer, A. (2003). Support Value of Sketching In The Design Process. Research in Engineering Design, 14(2), 89–97. doi: 10.1007/s00163-002-0028-7
  51. Shah, J. J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., Summers, J. D., & Kulkarni, S. (2001). Collaborative Sketching (C-Sketch) - An Idea Generation Technique For Engineering Design. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(3), 168–198. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01045.x
  52. Sharif, H. R., & Habibi, A. (2015). The Impact of The Learning Process of Architectural Design on The Creativity of Students (Case Study: The Preliminaries of Architectural Design 1 Course). Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(8), 261–266. doi: 10.3923/jeasci.2015.261.266
  53. Soygenis, S., Soygenis, M., & Erktin, E. (2010). Writing As A Tool In Teaching Sketching: Implications For Architectural Design Education. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 29(3), 283–293. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2010.01646.x
  54. Suwa, M., Gero, J., & Terry, P. (2000). Unexpected Discoveries And S-Invention of Design Requirements: Important Vehicles For A Design Process. Design Studies, 21(6), 539–567. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(99)00034-4
  55. Suwa, M., Purcell, T., & Gero, J. (1998). Macroscopic Analysis of Design Processes Based on A Scheme For Coding Designers’ Cognitive Actions. Design Studies, 19(4), 455–483. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00016-7
  56. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997a). What Do Architects And Students Perceive In Their Design Sketches? A Protocol Analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385–403. doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(97)00008-2
  57. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997b). How do designers shift their focus of attention in their own sketches? In AAAI Fall Symposium – Technical Report, FS-97-03, 102–108.
  58. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1996). What architects see in their sketches: Implications for design tools. In CHI 1996 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 191–192). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/257089.257255
  59. Tofte, E. P. (2017). Gismo or Goad?: Using The Common Reading Program Book As a Means of Motivating Students To Keep A Sketchbook. International Journal of Design Education, 12(1), 1–10. doi: 10.18848/2325-128X/CGP/v12i01/1-10
  60. Tversky, B. (2014). Affording Design, Affording Redesign. In T. Taura, Y. Nagai, and G. Georgiev (Editors), Pre-Design, design, and post-design: Principia design for the highly advanced technological society. NY: Springer. Pp. 91-102. doi: 10.1007/978-4-431-54403-6_7
  61. Tversky, B., & Suwa, M. (2009). Thinking with sketches. A. B. Markman & K.L. Wood (Eds.), In Tools for innovation: The science behind the practical methods that drive new ideas (pp. 75–84). New York: Oxford University. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381634.003.0004
  62. Yüksel, Ç. C., & Uyaroğlu, İ. D. (2021). Experiential Learning in Basic Design Studio: Body, Space and the Design Process. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 40(3), 508–525. doi: 10.1111/jade.12364
  63. Zell, M. (2008). Architectural Drawing Course: Tools and Techniques for 2D and 3D Representation (1st ed.). New York, NY: Barron’s Educational Series.
  64. Goldschmidt, G. (1992). Serial Sketching: Visual Problem Solving In Designing. Cybernetics and Systems, 23(2), 191–219. doi: 10.1080/01969729208927457
  65. Yüksel, Ç. C., & Uyaroğlu, İ. D. (2021). Experiential Learning in Basic Design Studio: Body, Space and the Design Process. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 40(3), 508–525. doi: 10.1111/jade.12364