Kamile ÖZTÜRK KÖSENCİĞ, Mehtap ÖZBAYRAKTAR

YARATICILIĞI TETİKLEYEN TASARIM STÜDYOSU STRATEJİLERİ

Bu çalışma, karşılaştırmalı vaka analizi yoluyla mimarlık pedagojisine ve tasarım stüdyolarında keşfedici öğrenme ortamlarına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, yaratıcılığı teşvik etmek için kullanılan tasarım stüdyosu stratejileri hakkında örnek vaka çalışmasını içermektedir. Bu amaçla çalışmada önde gelen yaratıcılığa dayalı yürütücü stratejileri; spekülatif, çoklu spekülatif, malzeme odaklı, metaforik ve analojik yürütücü stratejisi olarak sınıflandırılmış ve analiz edilmiştir. Bu stratejilerin temel konseptleri ve bunların yaratıcılık ve tasarım bilişi açısından etkileri tespit edilmiştir. Metodolojik olarak, literatür araştırması yoluyla yaratıcılığı tetikleyen farklı kavramlar tanımlanmış, ilgili stratejiler belirlenmiş ve bunu uygulayan yürütücüler tespit edilmiştir. Daha sonra bu yürütücülerin yaklaşımları yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve basılı kaynaklara dayanarak analiz edilmiş ve buna göre her bir yürütücünün döngüsel tasarım sürecini bilişsel açıdan nasıl değiştirdiği irdelenmiştir. Sonuçlara göre döngüsel problem tanımlama ve çözüm üretme sürecini dönüştürmesi bakımından bu stratejiler benzerdir. Ancak, bu stratejiler sürecin farklı aşamalarında etkilidir. Bazıları başlangıçta ve sürecin ortasında problemin tanımlamasını etkilerken bazıları da olası çözümlere etki etmektedirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Analoji, Mimarlık, Yaratıcılık, Metafor, Spekülasyon

DESIGN STUDIO STRATEGIES FOR STIMULATING CREATIVITY

This study aims to contribute to architecture design pedagogy and exploratory learning environments in design studios through cross-case analysis. It involves contextual sampling and collecting and analysing information from multiple sources about design studio strategies for stimulating creativity. Therefore, this study investigates the five leading creativity-based teaching strategies (i.e., speculative thinking, multispeculative thinking, material thinking, metaphorical thinking and analogical thinking as a teaching strategy) and identifies the main concepts and their impacts on the design process cognitively. The methodology of the study is to explore design studio practices by conducting document reviews about instructors and interviews with prominent international practitioners to collect in-depth information about their strategies. The paper identifies different stimulating concepts and demonstrates how an instructor cognitively influences the cyclical design process. According to the results deconstructing the iterative problem and solution process is typical for all these strategies. However, these strategies are effective in different phases of the process. They can affect problem identification at the beginning, redefining the design problem in the middle of the design process or possible solutions.

Keywords:

Analogy, Architecture, Creativity, Metaphor, Speculation.,

PDF

___

Aydınlı, S., and Kürtüncü, B. (2018). Paradigm shift in studio culture. A/Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 15(3),91–108. https://doi.org/10.5505/itujfa.2018.20053
Aydınlı, S., ve Kürtüncü, B. (2014). Paralaks oda. İstanbul: Cenkler Matbaacılık.
Bocca, D. (2020). Interviewed by Authors-8 July.
Casakin, H. (2011). Metaphorical reasoning and design expertise: A perspective for design education. Journal of Learning Design,4(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v4i2.73
Casakin, H. (2012). Visual Analogy as a Cognitive Stimulator for Problem Solving and Idea Generation in Design. S. Helie (Ed.), The Psychology of Problem Solving: An Interdisciplinary Approach (1st ed., pp. 1–28). Nova Science.
Casakin, H., and Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(98)00032-5
Clinton, G., and Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers : the Design / Creativity Loops model. Education Tech Research Dev, 60, 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9216-3
Donaldson, J. P. (2016). Alignment of creativity tools and techniques with theory andresearch. In F. Reisman (Ed.), Creativity in arts, science and technology (pp. 260-279). London: KIE Conference Publications.
Dong, F., Sterling, S., Li, Y., and Li, X. (2021). Design for the Speculative Future as a Knowledge Source. Cross-Cultural Design. Experience and Product Design Across Cultures. HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12771. Springer, Cham. Rau, PL.P. (eds)
Dorst, K., and Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
Fricker, P., Kotnik, T., and Piskorec, L. (2019). Structuralism: Patterns of interaction computational design thinking across scales. Journal of Digital Landscape Architecture, 4, 239–247. https://doi.org/10.14627/537663026
Goldschmidt, G., and Sever, A. L. (2011). Inspiring design ideas with texts. Design Studies, 32(2), 139–155. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.09.006
Guilford, Paul, J. (1968). Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications. San Diego, CA: Robert R. Knapp.
Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A. M., and Wood, K. L. (2008). Analogies and metaphors in creative design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 283–294.
Horden, R. (2008). Micro Architecture : Lightweight , mobile , ecological buildings for the future. London: Thames & Hudson.
Vermunt, J., & Verschaffel, L. (2000). Process-oriented teaching. In New learning (pp. 209-225). Springer, Dordrecht.
Jordanous, A. (2012). A Standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems: Computational creativity evaluation based on what it is to be creative. Cognitive Computation, 4(3), 246–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-012-9156-1
Kudless, A. (2016). Digital design exercises .J. Johnson and J. Vermillion (Eds). New York, London: Routledge.
Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of design in studio teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), 2–8.
Maslow, A. H. (1958). Emotional blocks to creativity. Journal of Individual Psychology, 13(1).
Moser, K. S. (2000). Metaphor Analysis in Psychology — Method , theory , and fields of application. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1090
Mott, J. A. (1973). Creativity and imagination (A Creative Understanding Book). Mankato: Creative Education, inc.
O’Brien, W. (2020). Interviewed by Authors-17 September.
Oxman, Rivka, and Oxman, R. (2010). The New Structralism Design, Engineering and Architectural Technologies. Architectural Design, 206, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/2075548
Oxman, R. (2001). The mind in design: a conceptual framework for cognition in design education. In Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 269-295). Elsevier Science.
Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: Theory, history, practice. London: Routledge.
Richards, K. M. (2008). Derrida Reframed- Interpreting key thinkers for the arts . Unided Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing, I.B.Tauris.
Salama, A. M. (2005). A Process oriented design pedagogy: KFUPM Sophomore Studio. CEBE Transactions, 2(2), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.11120/tran.2005.02020016
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Smithson, A. (1974). Mat system. Architectural Design, 573–590. https://bibliodarq.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smithson-a-howto-recognise-and-read-mat-building.pdf (Retrieval date:20.07.2022)
Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology, 36, 311–322.
Ward, T. B., Finke, R. A., and Smith, S. M. (1995). Creativity and the Mind: Discovering the genius within . New Yok: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3330-0
Yürekli, F. ve Falay, I. M. (2006). Karşı Deneyim Aykırı Eğitim. İstanbul: YEM (Yapı Endüstri Merkezi) Yayınları.
Zhu, Y. (2020). Comparing the effects of different types of cultural inspiration on design creativity. Design Journal, 23(6), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2020.1825173