Buradasınız

Mimari Tasarım Stüdyosunda İşbirlikli Öğrenme Yaklaşımı

COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN AN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
The purpose of this study is to discover the efficiency of cooperative learning approach in architectural design education. The study was conducted with 23 architecture students from the first and third year students in February-March 2011, in Bursa, Turkey. Researchers adopted a qualitative research strategy since it enables a deeper understanding of the context. The result of this study indicated that cooperative learning method at various levels can be used as an effective learning method to increase motivation of students, sharing knowledge and increasing learning capacity. Furthermore, this study showed that cooperative learning method during the first year of architecture education simplifies understanding, comprehension, and interpreting project areas.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı, işbirlikli öğrenme yaklaşımının mimari tasarım stüdyolarında etkili bir öğretim metodu olarak kullanılıp kullanılamayacağının araştırılmasıdır. Araştırma, Uludağ Üniversitesi Mimarlık Bölümü’nde 2010-2011 Eğitim Öğretim yılı Bahar Yarıyılında Mimari Tasarım I ve Mimari Tasarım V dersini alan iki farklı sınıftaki toplam 23 mimarlık öğrencisiyle Şubat – Mart 2011 tarihlerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir.Araştırmacılar, derinlemesine bir inceleme yapmak üzere kalitatif araştırma yöntemini benimsemişlerdir. Sonuç olarak, mimarlık eğitimi sürecinde çeşitli seviyelerde işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin kullanılmasının öğrencilerin motivasyonlarının artması, bilgi paylaşımı ve öğrenme kapasitesinin artmasını sağlamada etkili bir öğrenme metodu olarak kullanılabileceği ve mimarlık eğitiminin ilk yılında işbirlikli öğrenme yönteminin öğrencilerin proje alanını tanıma, kavrama ve yorumlamalarını kolaylaştırdığını ortaya koymuştur.
35-43

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Bartlett, R. L. (1995). A flip of the coin. A roll of the die: An answer to the free-rider problem in
economic instruction. The Journal of Economic Education, 26(2), 131–139.
2. Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Society for Research
into Higher Education: Open University Press.
3. Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J. S., Soloway, E. (1996). Learning with peers: From
small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25 (8), 37-40.
4. Bruffee, K. (1994). The art of collaborative learning: making the most of knowledgeable peers.
Change, 26(3), 39–44.
5. Caglar,N., (2007). Extra-curricular challenges in architectural design education: International
workshops or roving studios. GUMMF Winter School 2007, [www.ewsad.gazi.edu.tr, accessed
on 07.04.2011] (in Turkish)
6. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.
Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
7. Dewey, J. (1897). My Pedagogic Creed. The School Journal. LIV(3), 77-80.
8. Dominick, P. G., Reilly, R. R. and McGourty, J. (1997). Incorporating student peer review and
feedback into the assessment process. Paper presented at the Best Assessment Processes in
Engineering Education: A Working Symposium, Terre Haute, Indiana.
9. Datta, A. (2007). Gender and learning in the design studio. Journal for Education in the Built
Environment, 2(2): 21-35 (15)
10. Erbil, Y. (2008). Learning by building in architectural education. e-Journal of New World
Sciences Academy, 3(3): 579-587.
11. Gergen, K. (1999). An invitation to social construction. London: Sage Publications.
12. Glaser, B.G and Strauss A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine, Chicago.
13. Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence versus forcing. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
14. Goldschmidt, G. and Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity.
Design Studies 26(6), 593-611.
15. Gunderson, D.E. and Moore J.D. (2008). Group learning pedagogy and group selection.
International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 4:34–45.
16. McKeachie, W. J. (2002). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college
and university teachers. (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.17. Koester, R.J., (2006). Centers for regenerative studies: Graduate studio experiences in education
for sustainable design. Proceedings of PLEA2006, Geneva, Switzerland, 1:659-664.
18. Meiss, P.V. (1995). Design in a world of permissiveness and speed, architectural education, In
Pearce, M., Toy, M., (Ed)., Educating Architects (pp. 110-115) Great Britain: Academy Editions.
19. Piaget, J. (1928-1965/1995). Sociological studies. New York: Routledge
20. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
21. Rau, W. and Heyl, B. S. (1990). Humanizing the college classroom: Collaborative learning and
social organization among students. Teaching Sociology, 18(2), 141–155.
22. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., and Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on
undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.
23. Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. University Press, Cambridge, UK.
24. Timpson, W. M. and Bendel-Simso, P. (1996). Concepts and choices for teaching: Meeting the
challeges in higher education. Madison, WI: Magna Publications.
25. Umbach, P. and Wawrzynski, M. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student
learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46 (2), 153- 184.
26. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Interaction between learning and development. In: Mind and Society (pp. 79-
91) Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
27. Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2004). Qualitative Research Method In Social Sciences. Seckin Press,
Ankara, Turkey. (in Turkish)

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com