Uzaktan Eğitimde Çevrimiçi Bir Etkileşim Deneyimi: Mimarlık Bölümü Temel Tasarım Dersi için Bir Ders Tasarımı Önerisi

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 124 - 139, 31.12.2021

Ümit Bayırlı , Enes Can Kılıç

https://doi.org/10.54370/ordubtd.984757

Öz

Dünya Sağlık Örgütü tarafından 2020 yılında pandemi olarak ilan edilen COVID-19 salgını nedeni ile, dünya genelinde birçok eğitim-öğretim kurumunda uzaktan eğitime geçilmiştir. Ancak, uzaktan eğitim, eğitimin tüm paydaşları için alışılmadık bir alan olduğu için, bu ani değişim hem gerekli altyapıyı sağlamak durumunda olan kurumlar hem de eğitim modellerini ve araçlarını güncellemek zorunda kalan eğitmenler için bir kaos ortamı yaratmıştır. Bu makalede; mimarlık bölümlerinde, genelde ilk iki yarıyılda, stüdyo ortamında uygulamalı olarak verilen temel tasarım dersini uzaktan eğitime adapte edebilmek için yeniden yapılandırılan bir ders tasarımı önerisini a) dönem sonunda gerçekleştirilen bir çevrimiçi anket ile elde edilen öğrenci görüşleri ve yazarların b) süreç çıktılarını, öğrenci kazanımlarını ve c) kullanılan araçları değerlendirmeleri üzerinden tartışmaya açmak amaçlanmaktadır. Süreç değerlendirildiğinde; öğrenciler ve eğitmenler arasında ortak çalışma ve etkileşim gerektiren mimarlık bölümü temel tasarım dersi için bir uzaktan eğitim modeli olarak önerilen bu ders tasarımının; gerek kullanılan araç ve yöntemler açısından gerek çevrimiçi ortak çalışma alanları yaratması bakımından verimli olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

uzaktan eğitim, mimarlık eğitimi, temel tasarım, işbirliği, etkileşim

An Online Interaction Experience within Distance Education: A Course Design Proposal for the Basic Design Course of the Department of Architecture

Öz

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, which was declared as a pandemic in 2020 by the World Health Organization, many educational institutions around the world started distance education. However, since distance education is an unusual field for the stakeholders of education, this sudden change created chaos both for institutions in terms of providing the necessary infrastructure and for educators in terms of redesigning instruction techniques and tools. This article, it is aimed to discuss a distance education course design proposal for a basic design course, which is taught generally in the first two semesters within a studio environment at the department of architecture, through a) student opinions that were obtained through an online questionnaire that was conducted at the end of the semester, evaluations made by the authors about b) the process outputs and achievements and c) the tools. The results show that, the distance education course design proposal for the basic design course of the department of architecture, which requires collaboration and interaction between students and instructors, evaluated as being efficient both in terms of the tools and methods used and in terms of creating an online collaborative workspace.

Anahtar Kelimeler

distance education, architecture education, basic design, collaboration, interaction

Kaynakça

• Afacan, Y. (2012). Investigating the effects of group working in studying interior architecture. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 506-511. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.197
• Akbulut, D. (2010). The effects of different student backgrounds in basic design education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 5331-5338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.868
• Ali, A., & Liem, A. (2014). The use of formal aesthetic principles as a tool for design conceptualisation and detailing. Proceedings of NordDesign 2014, 490-499. https://www.designsociety.org/ publication/36293/The+use+of+Formal+Aesthetic+Principles+as+a+Tool+for+Design+Conceptualisation+and+Detailing
• Ali, N., Anwer, M., & Abbas, J. (2015). Impact of peer tutoring on learning of students. Journal for Studies in Management and Planning, 1(2), 61-66. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1147960.pdf
• Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2014). The role of e-learning, the advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(12), 397–410. https://www.ijern.com/journal/2014/December-2014/34.pdf
• Attoe, W., & Mugerauer, R. (1991). Excellent studio teaching in architecture. Studies in Higher Education, 16(1), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079112331383081
• Aydemir, M. (2018). Uzaktan eğitim program, ders ve materyal tasarımı. Eğitim Yayınevi.
• Bates, A. W. (2015). Teaching in a digital age. BC Campus.
• Bernardo, N., & Duarte, E. (2020). Design, education, and the online tech-pandemic. Strategic Design Research Journal, 13(3), 577-585. http://10.4013/sdrj.2020.133.22
• Boucharenc, C. G. (2006). Research on basic design education: An international survey. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 1-30. http://10.1007/s10798-005-2110-8
• Cheng, N. Y. (2003). Approaches to design collaboration research. Automation in Construction, 12(6), 715-723. http://10.1016/S0926-5805(03)00059-1
• Ching, F. D. K. (2007). Architecture form, space, and order. John Wiley & Sons.
• Chiu, L. (2002). An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Design Studies, 23(2), 187-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00019-9
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction. Pfeiffer.
• Denel, B. (1981). Temel tasarım ve yaratıcılık. Odtü Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayınları.
• Farivarsadri, G. (2001). A Critical View on Pedagogical Dimension of Introductory Design in Architectural Education. CEBE Architectural Education Exchange 2001 Conference. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.548.2785&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Gelernter, M. (1988). Reconciling lectures and studios. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(2), 46-52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1424834
• Girgin, D. (2019). Öğretmenlerin tasarım odaklı düşünmeye ilişkin bilişsel yapıları ve kavramsal değişimleri. Journal of Ahi Evran University Social Sciences Institute, 5(2), 459-482. https://doi.org/10.31592/aeusbed.578729
• Gökbulut, B. (2021). Uzaktan eğitim öğrencilerinin bakış açısıyla uzaktan eğitim ve mobil öğrenme. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 11(1), 160-177. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.797164
• Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26(6), 593-611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.02.004 Güngör, İ. H. (2005). Temel tasar. Patates Baskı.
• Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. Higher education, 49(4), 467-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-0040-0
• Hammad, J., Hariadi, M., Purnomo, M. H., Jabari, N., & Kurniawan, F. (2018). E-learning and adaptive e-learning review. IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, 18(2), 48–55. http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/201802/20180207.pdf
• Kocadere, S. A., & Özgen, D. (2012). Assessment of basic design course in terms of constructivist learning theory. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.128
• Kuloğlu, N., & Asasoğlu, A. O. (2010). Indirect expression as an approach to improving creativity in design education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1674–1686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.384
• Kurt, S. (2009). An analytic study on the traditional studio environments and the use of the constructivist studio in the architectural design education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 401-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.072
• Kvan, T., & Yunyan, J. (2005). Students' learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio. Design Studies, 26(1), 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.destud.2004.06.004
• Lang, J. (1998). Öğrenciler için mimarlığa giriş: temel tasarım dersini yeniden düşünmek. In N. Teymur & T. A. Dural (Eds.), Temel Tasarım/Temel Eğitim (pp. 3-13). Odtü Mimarlık Fakültesi Yayınları.
• Mayer, R. E. (2019). Thirty years of research on online learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3482
• Mittler, A. G. (1994). Art in Focus. McGraw-Hill.
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Cengage Learning.
• Salama, A. (1995). New trends in architectural education: Designing the design studio. Tailored Text & Unlimited Potential Publishing.
• Sausmarez, M. D. (1983). Basic design: The dynamics of visual form. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
• Schadewitz, N. (2009). Design patterns for cross-cultural collaboration. International Journal of Design, 3(3), 37–53. http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/276/273
• Schleyer, G., Langdon, G. S., & James, S. (2005). Peer tutoring in conceptual design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(2), 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790500087084
• Schlosser, A. L., & Simonson, M. (2009). Distance education: Definition and glossary of terms. Information Age Publishing.
• Simonson, M., Schlosser, C., & Orellana, A. (2011). Distance education research: A review of the literature. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 124-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9045-8
• UNESCO, (2021). Teacher task force calls to support 63 million teachers touched by the COVID-19 crisis. Retrieved June 6, 2021 from https://en.unesco.org/news/teacher-task-force-calls-support-63-million-teachers-touched-covid-19-crisis
• Wang, M., Ran, W., Liao, J., & Yang, S. J. H. (2010). A performance-oriented approach to e-learning in the workplace. Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 167-179. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ jeductechsoci.13.4.167