SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning / 2020 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

First Year Students’ View of Architecture

Hakan Anay
Ülkü Özten
Pages
412–430
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

FindingsFindings indicate a series of pretexts in students’ responses, particularly a residing (historical) determinism,abeliefinzeitgeist,aconservatism,apessimistic,passiveunderstandingofarchitecture.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PurposeThepresentstudyinvestigatesarchitecturestudents’pre-establishedschemataorprejudicestructures towards architecture before their formal education starts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This would be particularly deemed important since architectural pedagogy might be tweaked or even reformulated accordingly.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:FindingsFindings indicate a series of pretexts in students’ responses, particularly a residing (historical) determinism,abeliefinzeitgeist,aconservatism,apessimistic,passiveunderstandingofarchitecture.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PurposeThepresentstudyinvestigatesarchitecturestudents’pre-establishedschemataorprejudicestructures towards architecture before their formal education starts. This would be particularly deemed important since architectural pedagogy might be tweaked or even reformulated accordingly. Design/Methodology/ApproachThe research employs “content analysis” which is a method that uses set of tools and procedures to read texts for generating knowledge-based inferences. On such a ground, the research is based on single-sentence answers given to a simple question asked to students: “what architecture is all about.” and the recordings of a follow-up open-ended discussion with the students on the initial findings. The data is evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively. FindingsFindings indicate a series of pretexts in students’ responses, particularly a residing (historical) determinism,abeliefinzeitgeist,aconservatism,apessimistic,passiveunderstandingofarchitecture. On the other hand, they did not relate architecture to newness, change, difference, innovation, and they did not conceive architecture as an agent of these aspects. Research shows that students’ horizon of expectations and their preconceptions about architecture seem to be quite a mismatch with any trajectory of architectural education tradition that might take these notions as essential to itself and its intellectual core.Research Limitations/ImplicationsThe study is aimed to be part of baseline data for carrying out future investigations, a step toward more systematic analysis of changing state of today’s architectural education and a larger/global effort to map this phenomenon with its possible effects in architectural education.Originality/ValueThe study makes an original contribution to knowledge by being one of the first studies to focus on the question of “what architecture is all about” on behalf of the first-year architecture students in Turkey.

🔖

Cite This Article

Anay, H., Özten, Ü. (2022). First Year Students’ View of Architecture. ICONARP International Journal Of Architecture And Planning, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 412–430. https://ajindex.com/articles/538268

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Akin, O. (2001). Variants in design cognition. In C. M. Eastman, M. McCracken & W. Newstetter (Eds.). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. Elsevier. Akin, O., & Akin C. (1996). Frames of Reference in Architectural Design: Analysing the Hyper Acclamation (A-h-a-!), Design Studies, 17, 341-361.
  2. Anderson, S. (1987).
  3. The fiction of function, Assemblage, 2, 18-31.
  4. Bartlett, F. C. (1995) Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
  5. Baudrillard, J. (2007). Utopia deferred: Writings for Utopie (1967-1978). (trans.) Stuart Kendall. Columbia University, New York, Semiotext(e). Boullée, E. L. (1976).
  6. Architecture, Essay on Art. In H. Rosenau (Eds.).Boullée & Visionary architecture. New York, Harmony Books. Cary, J. (2017). Design for good: A new era of architecture for everyone. Island Press.
  7. Choay, F. (2005). Utopia and the anthropological status of built space, In Exit Utopia: Architectural Provocations 1956-1976,
  8. Munich, Prestel. Colquhoun, A. (1981). Essays in architectural criticism: Modern architecture and historicity. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
  9. Craig, D. L. (2001). Stalking Homo Faber: A Comparison of research strategies for studying design behavior. In C. M. Eastman, M. McCracken & W. Newstetter(Eds.). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education, Elsevier. Devlin, K. (1990). An examination of architectural interpretation: Architects versus non-architects. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 7 (3), 235-244.
  10. DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263-287.
  11. Gadamer, H. G. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics. University of California Press.
  12. Gombrich, E. (1969). In search of cultural history: The Philip Maurice Deneke Lecture 1967.
  13. Clarendon Press.
  14. Harries, K. (1997). The ethical function of architecture. Cambridge, Mass.The MIT Press.
  15. Hegel, G. W. F. (1943). Philosophy of right. Oxford University Press.
  16. Hollein, H. (1968). Everything is Architecture. Bau, no. 1/2. Jacob, F. (1993). The logic of life, a history of heredity. Princeton Science Library. Jameson, F. (2012). Varieties of the utopian. In Atlas of transformation, JRP-Ringier. Jauss, H. R. & Benzinger, E. (1970). Literary history as a challenge to literary theory. New literary history, no. 2 (1, A Symposium on Literary History). Johnson, E. (1988). Expertise and decision under uncertainty: Performance and process. In The nature of expertise, Hillsdale New Jersey, Lawrence Erlba