Amsterdam, The Netherlands 05-07 June 2008
DESIGNingDESIGNEDUCATION PROCEEDINGS PART I
DESIGNingDESIGNEDUCATION d es i g n t r a i nC O N G R E S S
PROCEEDINGS PART I
DESIGNingDESIGNEDUCATION d es i g n t r a i nC O N G R E S S Amsterdam, The Netherlands 05-07 June 2008 T R A I L E R
2
www.designtrain-ldv.com
DESIGNTRAIN CONGRESS TRAILER II PROCEEDINGS DESIGNing DESIGN EDUCATION PART I
1
DESIGNTRAIN ORGANIZERS KTU KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE TRABZON, TURKEY FB HOCHSCHULE BOCHUM UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED ARTS DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE BOCHUM, GERMANY PDM POLITECNICO DI MILANO DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING MILAN, ITALY GU GAZI UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE ANKARA, TURKEY ELIA EUROPEAN LEAGUE OF INSTITUTES OF THE ARTS AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS
Designtrain project is supported by the European Commission – Leonardo da Vinci Programme, Second Phase: 2000-2006
© Designtrain 2008
2
CONGRESS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE Aktan ACAR Gazi University, Department of Architecture, TURKEY Ali ASASOGLU Karadeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY Asu BESGEN GENCOSMANOGLU Karadeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY Anette HARDS Kent Architecture Centre, UK Ozgur HASANCEBI Karadeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY Nazan KIRCI Gazi University, Department of Architecure, TURKEY Betul KOC Gazi University, Department of Architecure, TURKEY Heiner KRUMLINDE Hochschule Bochum, University of Appleid Arts, Dept. of Architecture, GERMANY Nilgun KULOGLU Karadeniz Tecnical University, Faculty of Architecture, TURKEY Joost LANSHAGE European League of Institutes of the Arts (ELIA), NETHERLANDS Manfredo MANFREDINI Politecnico Milano, Dept. of Architecture and Planning, ITALY Pihla MESKANEN ARKKISchool of Architecture for Children and Youth, FINLAND Fulya OZMEN Gazi University, Department of Architecure, TURKEY
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023 024
INTRODUCTION KEYNOTE ADDRESS A VISION THE DESIGN PROCESS - BETWEEN IMAGINATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION FROM SOCIAL STUDIES CHAPTER III *TO NEVERLAND**... RESEARCH AND TRAINING IN THE FIELD: AN EXAMPLE OF CAD-SUPPORTED DRAWING DOCUMENTATION ON THE MAUSOLEUM OF BELEVI / TURKEY INTRODUCING DESIGN STUDIO LEARNING IN ARCHITECTURE TO NEW STUDENTS ANALYSIS OF FORMS STARTING DESIGN EDUCATION "BASIC DESIGN COURSE" A PEDAGOGY ARCHITECTURE & PHILOSOPHY: THOUGHTS ON BUILDING AN EMBODIED APPROACH TO LEARNING AT THE BEGINNING DESIGN LEVEL MANFREDO TARUFI AND JEAN PAUL SARTRE WALK INTO A BAR AND ORDER HALF A GLASS OF BEER THINKING CONSTRUCTION AS DESIGN AND FUNCTION OF ARCHITECTURE THE FIRST PROJECT (STUDIO) EXPERIENCE IN THE URBAN PLANNING EDUCATION: THE TESTING OF A METHOD FIRST CLASS / FIRST PROJECT: TO RAISE INQUIRY ABOUT DESIGN THROUGH MAKING FLEXIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR SMALL SPACES IN SPATIAL DESIGN TEACHING THE COTTBUS EXPERIMENT THREE FIELDS OF COMPETENCE EXPERIMENTATION VERSUS READY-KNOWLEDGE BASIC DESIGN STUDIO IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN EDUCATION FROM TRADITIONAL TO MODERN; METHODOLOGY OF NEIGHBORHOOD UNIT DESIGN THE DANCE OF DESIGN AND SCIENCE IN FIRST YEAR STUDIO: CONTRIBUTIONS OF BILGI DENEL TO BASIC DESIGN IN TURKEY THE EFFECT OF THREE DIMENSIONAL VISUALIZATION ABILITY ON BASIC DESIGN EDUCATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN A TURKISH PLANNING SCHOOL
4
5 9 26 43 57 72 87 99 113 125 138 148 160 172 183 199 209 224 240 251 262 277 289
THE EFFECT OF THREE DIMENSIONAL VISUALIZATION ABILITY ON BASIC DESIGN EDUCATION: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY IN A TURKISH PLANNING SCHOOL
Ebru Cubukcu, Ph.D. Assitant Proffesor Department of City and Regional Planning Faculty of Architecture Dokuz Eylul University Oda No: 109 Buca/ZMR 35160
[email protected] Gozde Eksioglu Research Assistant Department of City and Regional Planning Faculty of Architecture Dokuz Eylul University
[email protected] Telephone: 0090 232 4128462 Fax: 0090 232 4532986 Ebru Cubukcu, Ph.D. 2003, The Ohio State University, is an Assistant Professor of City and Regional Planning at Dokuz Eylul University, in Izmir, Turkey. She conducts research in the area of environmental perception, spatial cognition, virtual reality, post occupancy evaluation and design education. Her research has appeared in environmental psychology and urban planning journals, including Environment and Behavior, and Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. Gözde Ekiolu, Bs. 2007 Dokuz Eylul University Department of City and Regional Planning, in Izmir Turkey. She is currently a research assistant in City and Regional Planning Department at Dokuz Eylul University and working on her master degree in the Master Program of Urban Design at the same university. Her research interests included sustainable development, basic design education, and environmental aesthetics.
289
ABSTRACT
Basic design education is an essential component in most of the design education programs around the world and the importance of basic design education should not be undervalued in planning schools. The themes needed to be discussed during a basic design course includes two dimensional geometry (point, line, plane, and plan) and three dimensional volumes (space, volume, perspective). Among these themes, three dimensional visualization ability constitutes an important part as a planner is assumed to imagine and design the city in three dimensions (Gunay, 2007). Although there is a general agreement on the positive effect of three dimensional visualization ability on students’ success in basic design education, no study has attempted to test this relation. This study aimed to develop a methodology to test students’ three dimensional visualization ability and analyze the relation between three dimensional visualization ability and success in basic design education. Students studying in city and regional planning department at Dokuz Eylul University participated in the study. Results showed a significant relation between three dimensional visualization ability and success in basic design education. However, it should be noted that this study focused on basic design education. Whether students need three dimensional visualization abilities to be successful in planning and design practice needs to be further investigated. A useful extension of this study may also examine the relation between two components of basic design education; three dimensional visualization ability and creativity. Keywords: three dimensional visualization ability, basic design education, success in design schools, planning education, creativity.
290
Introduction Basic design education is a fundamental component in most of the design education programs around the world. Boucharenc (2006) conducted a survey in 198 design and architecture schools located in 22 countries, including France, Japan, Great Britain, United States, Germany, and Belgium, to determine the status of basic design education in the world. Teachers of basic design and project design (teaching the design courses in the academic years following the basic design studio), participated in the study. In general, results showed that design instructors, whether teaching basic design or project design, perceive basic design exercises as an essential component of four or five year design education. Boucharenc’s (2006) survey collected information on the actual and desired duration of basic design courses in the world. Results showed that in most of the surveyed schools teaching of basic design takes at least one year (about 79 %) or integrated over the whole academic program (about 15 %). Only in about six percent of the surveyed schools, teaching of basic design takes a period of less than one year. When teachers were asked about ideal duration of time allocated to the teaching of basic design, most of the basic design and project design teachers were in the view that basic design should be taught for at least one year (about 50 % of the participants) or should be integrated over the full length of academic program (about 45 %). Only about five percent of the teachers surveyed thought that it should take less than one year. This finding on actual and ideal duration of basic design education may indicate the importance of basic design education in various design education programs. Although design programs in Turkey were not represented in Boucher’s study, it is plausible to assume that his findings are partially applicable to Turkish planning schools. In most of the Turkish planning schools, basic design takes about one year. Informal conversations with basic design and project design teachers showed a desire to discuss basic design concepts in the academic years following the basic design studio. Acknowledging the fact that basic design is a fundamental component of design education, this study focuses on the essential themes of exercises in basic design. Boucharenc (2006) investigated the essential themes needed to be discussed during a basic design course. He gave an extended list of themes including point, line, plane, plan, space, volume, perspective, structure, proportion, deformation, ergonomics, light, color, materials, rhythm and others. When the proportion of the themes to be discussed was investigated, 291
the author found two dimensional geometry (point, line, plane, and plan) and three dimensional volumes (space, volume, perspective) constitutes about %50 (about %25 each) of the curriculum. In other words, students’ ability to comprehend and shape the third dimension constitutes an important part of basic design education. The importance of three-dimensional visualization ability in Turkish planning schools is no exception. In fact, Gunay (2007), who is teaching basic design in city and regional planning department at a Turkish design school for many years, argued that: “First year basic design studio interrogates the concepts of balance, solid-void, frame of reference, scale, proportion, order (structure, network, model), in terms of one dimensional lines, two dimensional areas and three dimensional volumes.” Given the fact that three dimensional visualization ability is a fundamental theme in basic design education, this study focuses on teaching of visualization techniques. In general, basic design teachers attempt to develop student’s three dimensional visualization ability by teaching visualization techniques such as axonometric, isometric, sketches, models, and three dimensional software. Boucharenc (2006) found that basic design teachers tend to use four traditional approaches (axonometric, isometric, sketches, and models). They rarely use three dimensional software. On the other hand, project teachers put more emphasis to sketches and models and put about equal importance onto axonometric, isometric, and three dimensional software. We argue that, although basic design and project design teachers disagree on which technique is more beneficial for the development of three dimensional visualization skills, it is generally accepted that a student who is better equipped with these skills would be more successful throughout the basic design course and produce more creative designs for tasks that require three dimensional visualization ability. Yet, there is no empirical study that tests the relation between three dimensional visualization ability and success in basic design. Thus, this study attempted to investigate the relation between these factors. Method For the 2007-2008 academic year 61 students, five of whom dropped the course in the first two weeks, enrolled to the required basic design course in city and regional planning at Dokuz Eylul University. Each student’s success in basic design was measured by their average grades on 62 first semester basic design studio tasks. Each task was rated by at least two basic design studio instructors who are teaching at the Department of City and Regional
292
Planning at Dokuz Eylul University during the 2007-2008 academic year. In general, students were able to complete each task in approximately 3 to 20 hours. The tasks aimed to develop students’ technical drawing skills and abstract thinking ability to understand and represent the concepts such as balance, order, harmony, contrast, emphasis, cluster, unity, and variety via mostly two dimensional media. For each student, each task was graded from 0 to 100. Then an average score, which was based on the completed tasks rather than all tasks, was calculated for each student. The average grades vary between 46 and 78. Students who achieved a score below 60 were assigned to ‘low’, and students who achieved an average score above 60 were assigned to ‘high’ success in basic design. Among 56 students who attend the basic design course for one semester, twenty nine (14 male, 15 female) volunteered to participate in three dimensional visualization tests. Volunteered students took the tests at the beginning of their first week of second semester of university attendance. To measure each student’s three dimensional visualization ability, participants were asked to complete three tasks, all of which required isometric drawing skills. For the first task, removing cubes, participants were given a cube formed by 64 smaller cubes (4 cubes on each of the x, y, z-axes). Then the participants were asked to remove four groups of three to five cubes from this 64 cube composition. For each cube group, the removed cubes were drawn next to the bigger cube, and the location where they were removed, were indicated with color differentiation on the bigger cube. Participants were then asked to draw four final isometric drawings showing the removed cubes in the bigger cube composition (Figure 1). The sum of the correct response for each task determines participants’ success in this task. The correct response is the difference between the correct lines and incorrect or missed lines. The scores vary between 13 and 51. Students who achieved a score below 45 were assigned to ‘low’, and students who achieved a score above 45 were assigned to ‘high’ success in removing cubes task.
Figure 1: An example showing the survey questions and answers for removing cubes task.
293
For the second task, drawing different views, participants were asked to draw top, left, and right views for four shapes (Figure 2). The sum of the correct response for each task determines participants’ success in this task. The scores vary between 2 to 12. Students who achieved a score between 2 and 6 were assigned to ‘low’, and students who achieved a score between 7 and 12 were assigned to ‘high’ success in drawing different views task. For the third task, drawing isometric perspectives, participants were given two nine pixel compositions (3 rows X 3 columns), where the height of each pixel was indicated with numbers. Participants were then asked to draw an isometric perspective for each composition (Figure 3). The sum of the correct response for each task determined the participants’ success in this task. The scores vary between 1 and 18. However, more than half of the students completed this task without error, and received a score of 18. Students completed the task without error was assigned to ‘high’, and others were assigned to ‘low’ success in drawing isometric perspectives task.
Figure 2: An example showing the survey questions and answers for drawing different views task.
Figure 3: An example showing the survey questions and answers for drawing isometric perspectives task.
Finally, a combined three dimensional visualization ability score was determined for each student: Participants who received ‘high’ from at least two of three tests were assigned to ‘high three dimensional visualization ability’ and others were assigned to ‘low three dimensional visualization ability’.
294
Statistical Results Overall, results showed that three dimensional visualization ability affects success in basic design. Table 1 shows the tabulated data with respect to success in basic design and level of three dimensional visualization ability. Results showed that, students who received higher scores for basic design success were equally distributed within high and low three dimensional visualization abilities. However, students who received lower scores for basic design success tended to achieve lower scores for three dimensional visualization abilities. This difference achieved statistical significance (2 = 3.99, df = 1, p < 0,05). Table 1: Distribution of number of participants by ‘success in basic design’ and ‘level of three dimensional visualization ability’. Success in Basic Design High Low Three Dimensional Visualization Ability TOTAL
TOTAL
High
10
1
11
Low
10 20
8 9
18 29
When the separate tests measuring three dimensional ability was analyzed, results showed a significant interaction between drawing isometric perspective and success in basic design (2 = 7.13, df = 1, p < 0,01). Students who received higher scores for basic design success tended to achieve higher scores and students who received lower scores for basic design success tended to achieve lower scores in drawing isometric perspective (Table 2). Table 2: Distribution of number of participants by ‘success in basic design’ and ‘success in drawing isometric perspective task’ .
Success in Basic Design High Low Drawing Isometric Perspective TOTAL
TOTAL
High
15
2
17
Low
5 20
7 9
12 29
295
between basic design success and removing cubes and the one between basic design success and drawing different views of a shape did not achieve statistical significance, the relation between these factors was in the expected direction. Students who received higher scores for basic design success tend to achieve higher scores and students who received lower scores for basic design success tend to achieve lower scores for removing cubes test (Table 3) and drawing different views test (Table 4). Table 3: Distribution of number of participants by ‘success in basic design’ and ‘success in removing cubes task’. Success in Basic Design High Low
Removing Cubes
TOTAL
High
11
4
15
Low
9 20
5 9
14 29
TOTAL
Table 4: Distribution of number of participants by ‘success in basic design’ and ‘success in drawing different views task’. Success in Basic Design High Low Drawing different views TOTAL
TOTAL
High
11
3
14
Low
9 20
6 9
15 29
Conclusion This study examined the relation between basic design education and three dimensional visualization ability. Success in basic design was measured by students’ average grades on various basic design studio tasks. Students’ three dimensional visualization abilities were measured by three tasks, all of which required isometric drawing skills. As expected, results showed that students who were successful in basic design received better scores in three dimensional visualization ability tests. Similarly, students who received lower scores for success in basic design showed lower three dimensional visualization abilities.
296
It should be noted that three dimensional visualization ability is not the only factor that may affect success in basic design education. As Denel (1981) argued creativity is one of the most important skills that a design student should possess. However, understanding the relation between three dimensional visualization ability and creativity was beyond the scope of this study. Yet, we tested if students who had higher three dimensional visualization abilities produced better and more creative designs for compositions that require an understanding of third dimension with a followup test. The students who participated in this study were later asked to develop a design for an entrance of a hypothetical monument during the second semester of the basic design course. The area to be designed had a high slope. The students were allowed to work in groups of two people. The project was to be completed in ten days and the instructors helped students by giving critiques for design. Since this task was given as a part of course curriculum, rather than a part of this research, it is not possible to statistically compare the creativity of students’ designs between students who received higher scores and lower scores in three dimensional visual ability tests. Despite methodological concerns, we found that the probability that a student may produce a successful or a poor design in terms of creativity was about equal for students who received high scores in three dimensional visual ability. However, students who received low scores in three dimensional visual ability were unlikely to produce a successful design in terms of creativity. Figure 4 shows an example of a design alternative produced by two students who received high scores in three dimensional visualization ability tasks, and figure 5 shows an example of a design alternative produced by two students who received low scores in three dimensional visualization ability tasks. Note however, this figure could not provide concrete empirical evidence. Thus, whether better three dimensional visualization ability leads a student to produce better and more creative design alternatives for a design problem deserves to be further investigated.
Figure 4: An example of a design alternative produced by two students who received high scores in three dimensional visualization ability tasks
297
Figure 5: An example of a design alternative produced by two students who received low scores in three dimensional visualization ability tasks
Recall, this study measured three dimensional visualization ability with three tasks, all of which required isometric drawing skills. Future studies may also consider using other tests, such as mental cutting and perspective drawing, to measure three dimensional visualization ability. These tests were given in a basic design course at the end of the first semester for one group of students majoring in city and regional planning. Whether the results of the present study will apply to other design based programs such as architecture, graphic design, interior architecture remains to be seen. More work needs to be done to test the generalization of the results to various groups of students. Moreover a useful extension of this study may test whether design education can improve a student’s three dimensional visualization ability and focus on which technique (axonometric, isometric, sketches, models or three dimensional software) is more beneficial in teaching and enhancing students’ three dimensional visualization abilities. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank to students for participating in the study, to Asst. Prof. Dr. Hayat Unverdi, Asst. Prof. Dr. Sibel Ecemis Kilic, Asst. Prof. Dr. Ahu Dalgakiran, Res. Asst. Evren Erdil, Res. Asst. Mercan Efe, and Res. Asst. Ibrahim Akgul for their help in formulating, carrying out and scoring the exercises given in the first semester of the design studio in 2007-2008 academic year.
298
References Boucharenc C.G. (2006), Research on Basic Design Education: An Internal Survey, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16:1-30 Denel, B. (1981), Temel Tasarım ve Yaratıcılık , ODTÜ Mimarlık Fakültesi Basım lii, Ankara Gunay, B. (2007), Gestalt Theory and City Planning Education, Middle East Technical University Journal of Faculty of Architecture, METU JFA, 24:1, 93113
299
CONFERENCE PROGRAM | DESIGNTRAIN | 5-7 JUNE 2008
14h30 – 15h30 GROUP SESSIONS
THURSDAY 5 JUNE 09h00 – 10h00
REGISTRATION
Main Entrance
10h00 – 11h00
OPENING SPEECHES
Room 407
Welcome to DESIGNTRAIN, Asu Besgen Gencosmanoglu, DESIGNTRAIN Project Manager Assist. Prof. Dr., Faculty of Architecture, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey Welcome to ELIA and Amsterdam, Dr. (hc) Carla Delfos, Executive Director European League of Institutes of the Arts (ELIA), Amsterdam, Netherlands 11h00 – 12h30
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Room 407
Creating Design Expertise Bryan Lawson Dean, Faculty of Architectural Studies, University of Sheffield, UK Author of “How Designers Think”, “What Designers Know”, “Language of Space”, “Design in Mind” 12h30 – 13h30
LUNCH
13h30 – 14h30
GROUP SESSIONS
GROUP I: ROOM 406 Session 1 | Experiencing First Year Design Education: Activities and Impressions: Psychology, Pedagogy, Learning Chair: Iakovos Potamianos University of Thessaloniki, Fine Arts School, Rafina, Greece Paper 1 Pedagogy, Brian Dougan Texas A&M University, College of Architecture, Texas, USA
Paper 2 An Embodied Approach to Learning at the Beginning Design Level, Irina Solovyova, Upali Nanda College of Architecture, Interior Design Program, San Antonio, Texas, USA Paper 3 The Burden of Beginning: Understanding the Mind of the Novice Through a Model of Incompetence, Greg Watson Mississippi State University, College of Architecture, Art and Design, Mississippi, USA
Lunch room
GROUP II: ROOM 407 Session 2 | Globalization Versus Localization in Design Education: Culture, Tradition, Local Chair: Nilgun Kuloglu Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey Paper 11 An Essay on Evaluating Personal-Subjective and Local-Cultural Factors in Design Education, Veyis Ozek, Gulay Dalgıc Trakya University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Architecture, Edirne, Turkey Paper 12 Investigation of Cultural Affects on Design Education, Kiymet Sancar, Sengul Yalcinkaya Erol Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey Paper 13 Structures and Form as a Territorial Entity, Genco Berkin, Ipek Fitoz, Ildem Aytar Halic University, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey Paper 14 Globalization Versus Regionalization: Change in Climate, Change in Education, Sule Aybar Bilkent University, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Ankara, Turkey
1
GROUP I: ROOM 406
GROUP II: ROOM 407
Session 3 | Experiencing First Year Design Education: Activities and Impressions: Philosophy Chair: Manfredo Manfredini Politecnico di Milano, Department of Architecture and Planning, Milano, Italy
Session 4 |Experiencing First Year Design Education: Activities and Impressions Chair: Asu Besgen Gencosmanoglu Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey
Paper 4 The Teaching of Philosophical and Architectural Thought in the Beginning Year of Architectural Education, Markus Breitschmid Virginia Technical University, School of Architecture and Design, Virginia, USA
Paper 15 Turkish Students’ First Experiences in Design Education, Nazan Kirci, Betul Koc Gazi University, Department of Architecture, Ankara, Turkey
Paper 5 From Poetics to Topology: Paths to Design Inspiration, Iakovos Potamianos University of Thessaloniki, Fine Arts School, Rafina, Greece Paper 6 An Imaginary First Year Design Course, Constantinos (Kosti) Keventsides University of Democritus, Faculty of Architecture, Thrace, Greece
Paper 16 Discovering the Personal Reason for Architecture Education, Ece Kumkale Gazi University, Department of Architecture, Ankara Turkey Paper 17 From Social Studies Chapter III, to “Neverland”... Doubt, Tension, Disillusion in The First Steps and the Transition from Observer to Actor..., Lerzan Aras Halic University, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey
Paper 7 Communication for the Motivation of First Year Design Education, Aysegul Kuruc Ada, Ece Postalci Altinkaya, Selim Okem Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
15h30 – 15h50
COFFEE BREAK
15h50 – 16h50
GROUP SESSIONS
Lunch Room
GROUP I: ROOM 406
GROUP II: ROOM 407
Session 5 | Experiencing First Year Design Education: Activities and Impressions: Creativity, Imagination Chair: Greg Watson Mississippi State University, College of Architecture, Art and Design, Mississippi, USA
Session 6 | Experiencing and Comprehending First Year Design Education: Activities and Impressions: Scopes, Courses and Lectures Chair: Frances Hsu Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Architecture, USA
Paper 8 Synchronization of Mental Abilities, Ali Guney Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture, Delft, Netherlands
Paper 18 Introducing Design Studio Learning in Architecture, Simon Beeson, Anthony Holness The Arts Institute at Bournemouth, Wallisdown, Poole, Dorset, UK Paper 19 Comprehending First Year Design Education: Course of Architectural Design _Faculty of Architecture -Syracuse - A.A. 2007-08, Mariagrazia Leonardi University of Catania, Faculty of Architecture, Sicily, Italy
2
GROUP I: ROOM 406 CONTINUED
GROUP II: ROOM 407 CONTINUED
Paper 9 The Design Process Between Imagination, Implementation and Evaluation, Ulrike Böhm, Katja Benfer, Cyrus Zahiri Berlin Institute of Technology, Department of Object Planning and Design, Berlin, Germany University of Kassel, Faculty of Architecture Urban Planning and Landscape Planning, Department of Landscape Architecture and Design, Kassel, Germany
Paper 20 Decoding Spatial Knowledge And Spatial Experience, Burcin Kurtuncu, Sait Ali Koknar, Pelin Dursun Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey
Paper 10 Manfredo Tafuri and Jean-Paul Sartre Walk into a Bar and Order Half a Glass of Beer (Or, Operations of Substance and Meaning for the Beginning Design Student), Kathryn L. Bedette Southern Polytechnic State University, Architecture Department, USA
Paper 21 Soul Searching - Shall We Dance?, Katherina Allo Universitas Pelita Harapan, Department of Architecture, Karawaci, Indonesia
16h50 – 17h50 PAPER DISCUSSIONS GROUP I: ROOM 406
GROUP II: ROOM 407
Paper Discussion Chair: Iakovos Potamianos University of Thessaloniki, Fine Arts School, Rafina, Greece
Paper Discussion Chair: Frances Hsu Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Architecture, USA
FRIDAY 6 JUNE 10h00 – 11h00 KEYNOTE ADDRESS From Theory to Praxis, From Praxis to Theory: Two Sides of the Same Coin Alexandros Tombazis Meletitiki-Alexandros N. Tombazis and Associates Architects Ltd., Athens, Greece Author of “Letter to A Young Architect”
Room 104
11h00 – 11h20
COFFEE BREAK
Lunch Room
11h20 – 12h30
GROUP SESSIONS
GROUP I: ROOM 407
GROUP II: ROOM 104
Session 7 | Experiencing First Year Design Education: Activities and Impressions Chair: Manfredo Manfredini Politecnico di Milano, Department of Architecture and Planning, Milano, Italy
Session 8 | Enjoying First Year Design Education: Ability and Motivation Chair: Ali Asasoglu Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey
Paper 22 Beginning from the Beginning: The Dynamic Character of Beginning Design Education, Tugyan Aytac Dural Baskent University, Faculty of Fine Arts Design and Architecture, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Ankara, Turkey Paper 23 The “Cottbus Experiment” - Three Fields of Competence, Richard Knoll, Henri Praeger Brandenburg Technical University, Cottbus, Germany Paper 24 The Vision of Design Training Program at Ajman University of Science &Technology (Ways of Teaching in Design Education), Abdulmounim T. Ali Ajman University of Science & Technology, Faculty of Engineering, Ajman, UAE
Paper 33 Creative Drama: An Alternative in Architectural Education, Hare Karakus, Tulay Samlioglu Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey
Paper 34 Warm Up - Game - Goal, Levent Aridag, Nermin Ciftci Beykent University, Engineering & Architecture Faculty, Department of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey Yildiz Technical University, Faculty of Education, Istanbul, Turkey Paper 35 Once Upon a Time, There was a Story in the Name of Design, Asu Besgen Gencosmanoglu, Erkan Aydintan, Emre Engin Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Interior Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey Paper 36 Sketching Lessons from Utopias: Transforming a Building Site to a Recreational Site, Akin Sevinc Yeditepe University, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey
12h30 – 13h30
3
4
LUNCH
Lunch Room
13h30 – 14h30
GROUP SESSIONS
GROUP I: ROOM 407
GROUP II: ROOM 104
Session 9: Experiencing First Year Design Education: Activities and Impressions Chair: Frances Hsu Georgia Institute of Technology, College of Architecture, USA
Session 8 | Enjoying First Year Design Education: Ability and Motivation Chair: Ali Asasoglu Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey
Paper 25 Structuring the First Year Design Studio, Selen Abbasoglu, Asu Tozan Kiessel Girne American University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Interior Design, Girne, North Cyprus Paper 26 The Battle of Grids: Preparing First Year Students for their Upcoming Design Studies in Jordan, Mohammad Ali Yaghan, Rejan Ashour German Jordanian University, College of Architecture and Design, Jordan Paper 27 Experimental and Creative Design Method for the First Year Architectural Design Studio, Tan Kamil Gurer, Zeynep Yazicioglu Halu Yildiz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey Yeditepe University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey Paper 28 First Class / First Project: To Raise Inquiry about Design Through Making, Stephen Temple University of Texas San Antonio, College of Architecture, San Antonio, Texas, USA
Paper 33 Creative Drama: An Alternative in Architectural Education, Hare Karakus, Tulay Samlioglu Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey
COFFEE BREAK
14h50 – 15h50
GROUP SESSIONS
Lunch room
GROUP I: ROOM 407
GROUP II: ROOM 104
Session 11: Experiencing First Year Design Education: Activities and Impressions Chair: Ali Asasoglu Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey
Session 12: Supporting First Year Design Education: Contribution by Cooperation and Networking: Technology Chair: Greg Watson Mississippi State University, College of Architecture, Art and Design, Mississippi, USA
5
Paper 29 Conflicts in Scale, Conflicts in Profession, Bahar Aksel Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning, Istanbul, Turkey
Paper 40 Experimentation Versus Ready-Knowledge, Dilay Guney, Fitnat Cimsit Beykent University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey
Paper 30 Design for Cultural Diversity, Ipek Ozbek Sonmez, Sebnem Gokcen Dundar, Muhammed Aydogan, Erdal Onur Diktas, Neriman Yorur Dokuz Eylul University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning, Izmir, Turkey
Paper 41 Is Computer Something “Dangerous” for Students in a First Step of Architectural Education?, Juan M. Otxotorena, Javier Anton Universidad de Navarra, Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, Navarra, Spain
Paper 32 The First Project (Studio) Experience in the Urban Planning Education: The Testing of a Method, Ahmet Melih Oksuz Karadeniz Technical University, Department of Urban And Regional Planning, Trabzon, Turkey
15h50 – 16h50
Paper 36 Sketching Lessons from Utopias: Transforming a Building Site to a Recreational Site, Akin Sevinc Yeditepe University, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey
14h30 – 14h50
GROUP II: ROOM 104 (CONTINUED)
Paper 31 From Traditional to Modern: Methodology of Neighborhood Unit Design, Oya Akin, Nilgun Erkan, Bora Yerliyurt Yildiz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning, Istanbul, Turkey
Paper 34 Warm Up - Game - Goal, Levent Aridag, Nermin Ciftci Beykent University, Engineering & Architecture Faculty, Department of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey Yildiz Technical University, Faculty of Education, Istanbul, Turkey Paper 35 Once Upon a Time, There was a Story in the Name of Design, Asu Besgen Gencosmanoglu, Erkan Aydintan, Emre Engin Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Interior Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey
GROUP I: ROOM 407 (CONTINUED)
Paper 42 A Walk Through The Field, Aldo Cesar Faga University of Catania, Architecture Faculty of Siracusa, Siracusa, Italy
Paper 43 Research and Training in the Field: An Example of Cad-Supported Drawing Documentation on the Mausoleum of Belevi / Turkey, Gamze Kaymak Heinz Technical University Vienna, Wien, Austria
PAPER DISCUSSION
GROUP I: ROOM 407
GROUP II: ROOM 104
Paper Discussion Chair: Manfredo Manfredini Politecnico di Milano, Department of Architecture and Planning, Milano, Italy
Paper Discussion Chair: Greg Watson Mississippi State University, College of Architecture, Art and Design, Mississippi, USA
17h15 – 19h15
ARCHITECTURAL TOUR THROUGH THE HISTORIC INNERCITY OF AMSTERDAM: “THE NEW AND THE OLD…” Tour starts at exactly 17h15 in front of the conference venue building!
6
13h30 – 14h30
SATURDAY 7 JUNE 10h00 – 11h00 KEYNOTE ADDRESS Room 104 What is Creative? Creativity in Architectural Theory, Practice and Education Sengul O. Gur Head, Building Sciences, Faculty of Architecture, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey Editor of A. U. Journal of Science and Technology and Educational Technologies Author of “Spatial Organization”, “House Culture” Co-Author of “Children and Environmental Psychology: Design Implications of the Cognitive Evaluations of School Environments by Primary School Children”, “Spaces for Children” 11h00 – 11h20
COFFEE BREAK
11h20 – 12h30
GROUP SESSIONS
Lunch Room
GROUP I: ROOM 104
GROUP II: ROOM 407
Session 13 | Dreaming First Year Design Education: Utopias, Expectations and Reality Chair: Nazan Kirci Gazi University, Department of Architecture, Ankara, Turkey
Session 14 | Supporting First Year Design Education: Contribution by Cooperation and Networking: Scopes, Courses and Lectures Chair: Heiner Krumlinde Hochschule Bochum, Department of Architecture, Bochum, Germany
Paper 44 Getting Entertained at First Year Design Studio: Talent and Motivation DESIGNTAINMENT (Designing with Entertainment for Motivation), Hayat Zengin Unverdi, Evren Erdin Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey Paper 45 An Experiential Learning Journey: Basic Design Studio, Ozgen Osman Demirbas Bilkent University, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Ankara, Turkey Paper 46 Starting Design Education “Basic Design Course”, Salih Salbacak Halic University, Department of Interior Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey Paper 47 Three Dimensional Space Perception and Basic Design Education, Ebru Cubukcu, Gozde Eksioglu Dokuz Eylul University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of City and Regional Planning, Izmir, Turkey
12h30 – 13h30
7
LUNCH
Paper 56 The Effect of Teaching the Basic Concepts on the First Year Architectural Education: Analysis of an Exercise in Building Science Course, Cigdem Canbay Turkyilmaz, Cigdem Polatoglu Yildiz Technical University Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey Paper 57 Analysis of Forms, Luis Manuel Fernandez Salido, Inmaculada Jimenez Caballero, Carlos Naya Villaverde, Imanol Garcia de Albeniz, Jose Angel Medina Murua, Clara Oloriz Sanjuan University of Navarre, School of Architecture, Pamplona, Spain Paper 58 A Method for Shaping Form of Interiors, B. Burak Kaptan Anadolu University, Fine Arts Faculty, Department of Interior Design, Eskisehir, Turkey
GROUP SESSIONS
GROUP I: ROOM 104
GROUP II: ROOM 407
Session 15 | Dreaming First Year Design Education: Utopias, Expectations and Reality Chair: Nilgun Kuloglu Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey
Session 16 | Supporting First Year Design Education: Contribution by Cooperation and Networking: Scopes, Courses and Lectures Chair: Iakovos Potamianos University of Thessaloniki, Fine Arts School, Rafina, Greece
Paper 48 Perceiving the Wine Never Begins from the Grape as an Object or Turning Back to The Flatting Earth Age, Y. Kenan Guvenc Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Department of Architecture, Eskisehir, Turkey
Paper 59 Rethinking “Little Narratives” in Design Education, Ozlem Ucar, Ozge Kandemir Anadolu University, Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Interior Design Department, Eskisehir, Turkey
Paper 49 Non-Basic is Canonic Base, Recep Ustun Eskisehir Osmangazi University Department of Architecture, Eskisehir, Turkey
Paper 60 Creating Awareness in Interior Design Education, Fusun Curaoglu, Deniz Sipahioglu Anadolu University, Fine Arts Faculty, Department of Interior Design, Eskisehir, Turkey
Paper 50 Model Suggestion Related to Basic Design Course in Architectural Education, Sengul Yalcinkaya Erol, Kiymet Sancar Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, Trabzon, Turkey Paper 51 Effects of Prejudice in First Year Architectural Basic Design Studio, Zeynep Yazicioglu Halu Yeditepe University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey
Paper 62 Flexible Solutions for Small Spaces in Special Design Teaching, Didem Beduk Tuncel, Hande Z. Altinok Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Interior Architecture, Istanbul, Turkey
14h30 – 15h30 GROUP SESSIONS GROUP I: ROOM 104
GROUP II: ROOM 407
Session 17 | Dreaming First Year Design Education: Utopias, Expectations and Reality Chair: Nazan Kirci Gazi University, Department of Architecture, Ankara, Turkey
Session 18 | Supporting First Year Design Education: Contribution by Cooperation and Networking: Scopes, Courses and Lectures Chair: Heiner Krumlinde Hochschule Bochum, Department of Architecture, Bochum, Germany
Paper 52 The Dance of Design and Science in First Year Studio: Contributions of Bilgi Denel to Basic Design in Turkey, Tonguc Akis Middle East Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, Ankara, Turkey
Lunch Room
Paper 61 Creating Costume for Madonna with Materialization Methodologies, Aysen Celen Ozturk Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Department of Architecture, Eskisehir, Turkey
Paper 53 A Method on Basic Design Education, Ozgur Kaptan Anadolu University, Fine Arts Faculty, Department of Ceramic Arts, Eskisehir, Turkey
8
Paper 63 Implementing Active Learning as a Tool in Architectural Education: An Experiment in First Year Design Education, Fulya Ozmen Gazi University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Architecture, Ankara, Turkey Paper 64 Thinking Construction as Design and Function in Architecture, Radivoje Dinulovic, Dragana Konstantinovic, Miljana Zekovic University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department of Architecture and Urbanism, Novi Sad, Serbia
GROUP I: ROOM 104 (CONTINUED)
GROUP II: ROOM 407 (CONTINUED)
Paper 54 Design Process Model with Student Participation in Basic Design Education, Altay Colak, Gulertan Akyuzluer, Mustafa Yegin, Tolga Uzun, Ahmet Kochan, Ayberk Nuri Berkman Cukurova University, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Architecture, Adana, Turkey
Paper 65 Vernacular Design as the Teaching Tool of the Ecological Architecture, Selda Kabuloglu Karaosman Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, Faculty of Architecture, Environmental Analysis and Control Department, Istanbul, Turkey
Paper 55 Approaches Concerning the Solution of a Design Problem in Basic Design Studio, Mehmet Uysal, Yavuz Arat Seljuk University Engineering and Architecture Faculty, Department of Architecture, Konya, Turkey
15h30 – 15h50
COFFEE BREAK
15h50 – 16h50
PAPER DISCUSSIONS
Lunch Room
GROUP I: ROOM 407
GROUP II: ROOM 104
Paper Discussion Chair: Nazan Kirci Gazi University, Department of Architecture, Ankara, Turkey
Paper Discussion Chair: Heiner Krumlinde Hochschule Bochum, Department of Architecture, Bochum, Germany
16h50 – 17h50
CLOSING
Farewell to DESIGNTRAIN, Asu Besgen Gencosmanoglu, DESIGNTRAIN Project Manager Assist. Prof. Dr., Faculty of Architecture, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey
9
