Açık Tasarım Eğitimine Doğru: Hesaplama ve Hesap Verebilme

Yükseköğretimde öğrenim çıktıları olarak bilgi ve becerileri tamamlayan tutumlar, doğrudan değerlendirilemeyen yeterlilikler olarak genellikle geri planda kalır. Mimarlık eğitiminde hümanist, sürdürülebilir ve çevreci yaklaşımlar küresel ve yerel gündemlere uygun olarak artarken okulların stüdyo kültürlerinde benimsenen tutumlar, işbirlikçi ve katılımcı süreçlerden çok bireysel yaratıcı süreçler ön plana çıkabilmektedir. Hesaplamalı tasarım yöntemleri ise tasarımın muhakeme adımlarını açık ederek paylaşımcı tutumları beslerken, açık ve sorumluluk bilinci güden tasarım kültürleri oluşturmak için yeni fırsatlar sunmaktadır. Bu makale, hesap verebilir olmayı bir tutum olarak tasarım eğitiminde uygulamak ve değerlendirmek amacıyla kullanılan hesaplamalı tasarım yöntemlerine disiplinler arası bir literatürle bağlam ve kuramsal bir çerçeve sunmaktadır. Tasarım eğitiminin ilk yılında, süreci dışsallaştıran görsel kuralların kullanımı ile görsel hesaplama uygulamaları, süreci açıkça paylaşan, sorgulayan ve bağlamlarıyla ilişkilendiren tutumları beslemeye yarar.

Open Design Education: Addressing Accountability in the Age of Computing

Attitudes complement knowledge and skills but are often overlooked as assessable competencies in higher education. In architecturaldesign curriculum, attitudes are especially relevant in order to ensure the training of responsible designers. As humanistic and environmental issues approaches are increasingly, the studio cultures of the schools seek to cultivate collaborative and participatory skills onindividual creativity. The parallel acclaim of computational methods expounds the reasoning processes of design and new opportunitiesarise for open and liable cultures of design. However, the task of connecting these methods to a broader competency in design is still notfulfilled. This paper provides an interdisciplinary context for accountability as an attitude in design education and a conceptual framework for implementing and assessing it through computational methods. It argues that computation in early-design education, in theform of shape rules and devices of visual computing, is supportive in instilling reflective attitudes by promoting knowledge sharing withaccountability among learners

PDF

___

Adam, S. (2006). An introduction to learning outcomes. In E. Froment, J. Kohler, L. Purser, & L. Wilson (Eds.), EUA Bologna Handbook: Making Bologna Work. Dr. Josef Raabe Verlags-GmbH.
Bernstein, P., & Deodhar, A. (2015). Role of building information modelling in green architecture. In M. Kanaani & D. Kopec (Eds.), The Routledge Companion for Architecture Design and Practice: Established and Emerging Trends. Routledge.
Carpo, M. (2014). Digital indeterminism: The new digital commons and the dissolution of architectural authorship. In A. Sprecher (Ed.), Architecture in Formation: On the Nature of Information in Digital Architecture (pp. 47–51). Routledge.
Crosby, A. L., & Morgan, A. C. (2016). Levering critical collaboration: The first-year interdisciplinary design experience. In R. Tucker (Ed.), Collaboration and Student Engagement in Design Education (pp. 169–187). IGI Global.
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworksfor 21st century skills. In J. A. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn (pp. 51–76). Solution Tree Press.
Dong, A. A.-S. (2006). How am I doing? The language of appraisal in design. In J. Gero (Ed.), Design Computing and Cognition ’06 (pp. 385–404). Springer.
Dong, A. A.-S. (2008). The language of design: Theory and computation. Springer-Verlag.
Dutton, T. A. (1991). Voices in architectural education: Cultural politics and pedagogy. Bergin & Garvey.
Garfinkel, H. (2016). Studies in ethnomethodology. Polity Press.
Gürsoy, B., & Özkar, M. (2015). Schematizing Basic Design in Ilhan Koman’s “Embryonic” Approach. Nexus Network Journal, 17(3), 981–1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-015-0261- 9
Habraken,N.J.,&Gross, M. D. (1988). Concept design games. Design Studies, 9(3), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142- 694x(88)90044-0
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Hulstijn, J., & Burgemeestre, B. (2015). Design for the values of accountability and transparency. In J. van den Hoven, P. E.
Vermaas, & I. van de Poel (Eds.), Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains (pp. 303–333). Springer Reference.
Johnson, D. G. (2004). Computer ethics. In L. Floridi (Ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information (pp. 65–75). Wiley-Blackwell.
Knight, T. W. (2012). Slow computing: Teaching generative design with shape grammars. In N. Gu & X. Wan (Eds.), Computational Design Methods and Technologies: Applications in CAD, CAM, and CAE Education (pp. 34–55). IGI Global.
Knight, T. W. (1994). Transformations in design: A formal approach to stylistic change and innovation in the visual arts (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Lachterman, D. R. (1989). The ethics of geometry: A genealogy of modernity. Routledge.
Mitchell, W. J. (1995). CAD as a social process. In M. Tan & R. Teh (Eds.), The Global Design Studio: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures. Centre for Advanced Studies in Architecture, National University of Singapore.
Ostwald, M. J. (2010). Ethics and the auto-generative design process. Building Research & Information, 38(4), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2010.481172
Özkar, M. (2005). Lesson 1 in design computing does not have to be with computers: Basic design exercises, exercises in visual computing. In J. P. Duarte, L. Ducla-Soares, & A. Z. Sampaio (Eds.), eCAADe 23 Digital Design: The Quest for New Paradigms (pp. 679–686). Technical University of Lisbon.
Özkar, M. (2011). Visual schemas: Pragmatics of design learning in foundations studios. Nexus Network Journal, 13(1), 113– 130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-011-0055-7
Pupo, R., Pinheiro, É., Mendes, G., Kowaltowski, D., & Celani, G. (2007). A design teaching method using shape grammars. VII International Conference on Graphics Engineering for Arts and Design, 1–10.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Shupe, D. A. (2008). Toward a higher standard: The changing organizational context of accountability for educational results. On the Horizon, 16(2), 72–96. https://doi. org/10.1108/10748120810874487
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Stiny, G. (1980). Kindergarten grammars: Designing with Froebel’s building gifts. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 7(4), 409–462. https://doi.org/10.1068/b070409
Stiny, G. (2006). Shape: Talking aboutseeing and doing. MIT Press.
Tanenbaum, J. G., Williams, A. M., Desjardins, A., & Tanenbaum, K. (2013). Democratizing technology: Pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and maker practice. CHI ’13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2603–2612.
Vetting Wolf, T., Rode, J. A., Sussman, J. B., & Kellogg, W. A. (2006). Dispelling “design” as the black art of CHI. CHI ’06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 521–530.
Wei, C. C., Choy, C. S., Chew, G. G., & Yen, Y. Y. (2012). Knowledge sharing patterns of undergraduate students. Library Review, 61(5), 327–344. https://doi.org/https://doi. org/10.1108/00242531211280469