Dergiler / Journal of Design Studio / 2020 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

Critical Reflections on the Surface, Pedagogical and Epistemological Features of the Design Studio under the “New Normal” Conditions

Sayfa
25–36
Yayın Tarihi
2020-07-20
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Rather than reducing the discussions on remote teaching and learning to a ‘technology-driven’ paradigm change in design education, future research should focus on the effects of changing pedagogical tools and practices on the manifold dimensions of ‘human learning’, which in turn will have implications for the epistemology of design pedagogy.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study aims to make a critical reading on the constraints and potentials that emerge through the transition from face-to-face to screen-to-screen teaching and learning experiences in design education during the COVID-19 pandemic.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The theoretical framework of the study is based on the model developed by Shaffer (2003) regarding the three main elements of the design studio pedagogy as (1) “surface structures”, (2) “pedagogical forms” and (3) “epistemological principles.” The study revealed that the current situation, on the one hand, opened the ways for us to test “new” tools, methods and experiences of teaching and learning, and on the other hand, allowed us to better understand the potentials and well-functioning aspects of the “existing” pedagogical models.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Rather than reducing the discussions on remote teaching and learning to a ‘technology-driven’ paradigm change in design education, future research should focus on the effects of changing pedagogical tools and practices on the manifold dimensions of ‘human learning’, which in turn will have implications for the epistemology of design pedagogy.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:2003 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:COVID-19 · architectural design education · design studio pedagogy

Abstract

This study aims to make a critical reading on the constraints and potentials that emerge through the transition from face-to-face to screen-to-screen teaching and learning experiences in design education during the COVID-19 pandemic. By making a critical reading of current discussions, mostly in narrative surveys, on architectural design education, it is attempted to re-contextualize the emerging concepts of the remote teaching and learning to the broader context of design studio pedagogy literature. The theoretical framework of the study is based on the model developed by Shaffer (2003) regarding the three main elements of the design studio pedagogy as (1) “surface structures”, (2) “pedagogical forms” and (3) “epistemological principles.” The study revealed that the current situation, on the one hand, opened the ways for us to test “new” tools, methods and experiences of teaching and learning, and on the other hand, allowed us to better understand the potentials and well-functioning aspects of the “existing” pedagogical models. Rather than reducing the discussions on remote teaching and learning to a ‘technology-driven’ paradigm change in design education, future research should focus on the effects of changing pedagogical tools and practices on the manifold dimensions of ‘human learning’, which in turn will have implications for the epistemology of design pedagogy.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

YORGANCIOĞLU, D. (2020). Critical Reflections on the Surface, Pedagogical and Epistemological Features of the Design Studio under the “New Normal” Conditions. Journal of Design Studio, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 25–36. https://ajindex.com/articles/775868

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (7)

  1. Abdullaha, N. A. G., Behb, S. C., Tahirb, M. M., Che Anib, A. I., & Tawilb, N. M. (2011). Architecture design studio culture and learning spaces: a holistic approach to the design and planning of learning facilities. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 27-32. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.044 Acar, A. (2020). Birinci sınıf mimarlık eğitimi için çevirimiçi izdüşümler. XXI, 1-18. Retrieved from: https://xxi.com.tr/i/birinci-sinif-mimarlik-egitimi-icin-cevrimici
  2. Akalın, A., & Sezal, I. (2009). The importance of conceptual and concrete modelling in architectural design education. JADE, 28(1), 14-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8070.2009.01589.x Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Archer, B. (1992).
  3. As complex as ABC. In P. Roberts, B. Archer, & K. Baynes (Eds.). Design: Occasional Paper No. 1, Modeling: The language of designing (pp. 7–11). Loughborough: Loughborough University of Technology. Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., & Wyse, D. (Eds.). (2010, fist published in 1977). A Guide to teaching practice (5th ed.). London & New York: Routledge. Cowan, J. (2005), ‘Evaluation and feedback in architectural education’, in D. Nicol and S. Pilling (eds.) Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism (pp. 236-244). London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group. Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), Special Issue: Design Education, 18-28. doi: 10.5204/jld.v6i3.155 Crysler, C. G. (1995). Critical pedagogy and architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education, 48(4), 208-217.
  4. Davies, T., & Elmer, R. (2001). Learning in design and technology: the impact of social and cultural influences on modeling. Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(2), 163–80.
  5. Dutton, T. A. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 16-25.
  6. Dutton, T. A. (1991). The hidden curriculum and the design studio. Voices in Architectural Education: cultural politics and pedagogy. (pp. 165-194), New York: Bergin and Garvey. Field Notes on Pandemic Teaching: 1. (April 2020).
  7. Reinhold Martin, Susan Piedmont-Palladino, Brent Sturlaugson, Barbara Penner, Harriet Harriss, Judith Rodenbeck, Sandy Isenstadt, Anna Livia Brand, Iman Ansari, Hélène Frichot, Brett Milligan, Places Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://placesjourn