Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio

Orçun KEPEZ (Kadir Has Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Türkiye)
A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi
4 0
Yıl: 2017 Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 41 - 52 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 12-11-2019

Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio

Öz:
The decision-makers choices regarding the design and construction of educational spaces have a direct impact on the academic culture. With regard to thedesign studios, the physical conditions of the studio spaces specifically act as themain element that creates the studio culture. The present study aims at understanding the relationship between the spatial transformation and the expectationsof the students. Following a post occupancy approach, we asked, “What can welearn from collection of individual evaluations of students’ on transformed studioenvironment?” and “Where does this knowledge fit in the readily available literature on built environment and learning spaces?” Twenty-five students are askedto write texts on their expectations related to a transformed studio in which theywere receiving education at the time of the study. The texts are first examined forthe frequency of the words used via cloud analysis. Following that analysis, twoindependent evaluators identified the phenomena in the texts and conducted acontent analysis. The student expectations are classified into two main groups:Learning Experiences and Spatial Experiences. Learning experience involves threesubgroups namely variation in work practices, creativity and social interactionsand spatial experience is made up of physical comfort and furniture subgroups.Although during the spatial transformation, some improvement have been made,they did not completely fulfill the students’ expectations. The present study proposes that in such spatial transformations, it would be possible to attain user satisfaction when decision-makers follow participatory processes in which all groups thatwould be effected can participate.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Mimarlık Çevre Çalışmaları Kentsel Çalışmalar
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Alper, M. (2004). Dünü ve bügünü ile Cibali tütün fabrikası. In S. F. Göncüoğlu (Ed.), Sempozyum bildirileri (pp. 33–40). İstanbul: Kadir Has Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from http://scholar.google. com/scholar?q=Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate&btnG=&hl=en&num=20&as_ sdt=0%2C22
  • Boyer, E. L., & Mitgang, L. D. (1996). Building community: A new future for architecture education and practice: a special report. Princeton, N.J: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
  • Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 329–348.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed Methods approaches (Third Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
  • Çubukcu, E., & Işıtan, Z. N. (2011). Does student behavior differ in relation to perception / evaluation of campus environments? A post-occupancy research in two university campuses. Gazi University Journal of Science, 24(3), 547–558.
  • Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The Story of practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Demirbaş, O., & Demirkan, H. (2000) Privacy dimensions: A case study in the interior architecture design studio. Journal of Environmental Pscychology, 20, 53–64.
  • Demirkan, H., & Demirbaş, O. (2008). Focus on the learning styles of freshman design students. Design Studies, 29, 254–266.
  • Devlin, A. S. (2010). What Americans build and why: psychological perspectives. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dockrell, J. E., & Shield, B. (2004). Children’s perceptions of their acoustic environment at school and at home. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(6), 2964–2973.
  • Dülgeroğlu, Y., Aydınlı, S., Pulat, G., Yılmaz, Z., & Özgünler, M. (1996). Toplu konutlarda nitelik sorunu. Ankara: Toplu Konut İdaresi.
  • Duran-Narucki, V. (2008). School building condition, school attendance, and academic achievement in New York City public schools: A mediation model. Journal of Environmental Pscychology, 28, 278–286.
  • Dursun, P., & Özsoy, A. (2008). How can architects learn from their own experiences? A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 5(2), 82–95.
  • Earthman, G. I. (2004). Prioritization of 31 criteria for school building adequacy. Baltimore, MD: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland.
  • Edgü, E. (2015). Success in Basic Design Studios: Can seat selection be an advantage? A|Z ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 12(3), 41–53.
  • Espey, M. (2008). Does space matter? Classroom design and team-Based learning. Review of Agricultural Economics, 30(4), 764–775.
  • Fugazzotto, S. J. (2009). Mission statements, physical space, and strategy in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(5), 285–298.
  • Fugazzotto, S. J. (2010). Physical space and the resource-based view of the college. Innovative Higher Education, 35(4), 245–259.
  • Gür, E. (2010). Open and cell-type design studios: Their impact on architectural education. Archnet-IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2–3), 216–224.
  • Harvey, E. J., & Kenyon, M. C. (2013). Classroom seating considerations for 21st century students and faculty. Journal of Learning Spaces, 2(1). Retrieved from http://libjournal. uncg.edu/jls/article/view/578
  • Karsli, U. T. (2016). Performance evaluation of open and cell type design studios. Open House International, 41(1), 27-34.
  • Kepez, O. (2015). Bir araştırma ortamı olarak lisansüstü eğitim. In Ö. Cordan (Ed.), İÇLEK: Ulusal İç Mimarlık Lisansüstü Eğitim Kongresi I (pp. 45–52). İstanbul: İTÜ.
  • Knight, G., & Noyes, J. (1999). Children’s behaviour and the design of school furniture. Ergonomics, 42(5), 747–760.
  • Korkmaz, E., & Türkoğlu, H. (2003). Kentsel açık alanlar: Beşiktaş iskele meydanı ve çevresi. Yapı Mimarlık Kültür Sanat Dergisi, (264), 65–67.
  • Krüger, E. L., & Zannin, P. H. (2004). Acoustic, thermal and luminous comfort in classrooms. Building and Environment, 39(9), 1055–1063.
  • Kumar, R., O’Malley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2008). Association between physical environment of secondary schools and student problem behavior: A national study, 2000-2003. Environment and Behavior, 40(4), 455–486. Manahasa, O., & Özsoy, A. (2016).
  • Do architects’ and users’ reality coincide? A post occupancy evaluation in a university lecture hall. A/Z : ITU Journal of Faculty of Architecture, 13(3), 119–133.
  • Nasar, J., Preiser, W. F. E., & Fisher, T. (Eds.). (2007). Designing for designers : lessons learned from schools of architecture. Fairchild Publications.
  • Özsoy, A., Altas, N. E., Ok, V., & Pulat, G. (1996). Quality assessment model for housing: A case study on outdoor spaces in Istanbul. Habitat International: A Journal for the Study of Human Settlements, 20(2), 163–173.
  • Preiser, W. F. E., White, E., & Rabinovitz, H. (1988). Post occupancy evaluation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  • Ruffo, J. (2008). “Millenial” or “Net Generation” students and their impact on the development of student-centered facilities. Planning for Higher Education, 37(1), 5–6.
  • Salama, A. M. A. (1995). New trends in architectural education: designing the design studio. Raleigh, NC, USA: Tailored Text Publishers.
  • Salama, A. M. A. (2015). Spatial design education: new directions for pedagogy in architecture and beyond. Farnham Surrey, England ; Burlington: Ashgate.
  • Sanoff, H. (1994). School design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
  • Sanoff, H. (1999). Student responses to architecture schools. In M. T (Ed.), The Power of Imagination: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Environmental Design Research Association [EDRA] Conference (pp. 188–195). Florida: EDRA.
  • Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: Wiley.
  • Schneider, M. (2002). Do school facilities affect academic outcomes? National clearing house for educational facilities. National Institute of Building Sciences. Retrieved from http://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470979.pdf
  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
  • Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications.
  • Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their funcstions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156.
  • Scott-Webber, L., Aileen, S., & Kapitula, L. (2013). Built environments impact behaviors: Results of an active learning post-occupancy evaluation. Planning for Higher Education, (October-December), 28–39.
  • Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy. Wisconsin Center for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED497579.pdf
  • Steinbock, D. (n.d.). Tag Crowd. Retrieved from http://tagcrowd.com
  • Taylor, S. S. (2009). Effects of studio space on teaching and learning: Preliminary findings from two case studies. Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10755-008-9079-7
  • Uluoglu, B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, (21), 33–58.
  • Ulusoy, Z. (1999). To design versus to understand design: The role of graphic representations and verbal expressions. Design Studies, (20), 123–130.
  • Ünlü, A., Edgü, E., Cimşit, F., Salgamcioglu, M. E., Garip, E., & Ashkan, M. (2009). Interface of indoor and outdoor spaces in buildings. In D. Koch, L. Marcus, & J. Steen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium. Stockholm: KTH.
  • Yang, Z., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Mino, L. (2013). A study on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: Impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance. Building and Environment, 70, 171-188.
  • Yıldız, D., & Şener, H. (2006). Binalarla tanımlı dış mekanların kullanım değeri analiz modeli. Itüdergisi/A Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 5(1), 115–127.
  • Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by design: environment/behavior/neuroscience in architecture, interiors, landscape, and planning (Rev. ed). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
  • Zimring, C. (2003). Postoccupancy evaluation: Issues and implementation. In R. B. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of Environment Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
APA KEPEZ O (2017). Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. , 41 - 52.
Chicago KEPEZ Orçun Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. (2017): 41 - 52.
MLA KEPEZ Orçun Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. , 2017, ss.41 - 52.
AMA KEPEZ O Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. . 2017; 41 - 52.
Vancouver KEPEZ O Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. . 2017; 41 - 52.
IEEE KEPEZ O "Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio." , ss.41 - 52, 2017.
ISNAD KEPEZ, Orçun. "Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio". (2017), 41-52.
APA KEPEZ O (2017). Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(3), 41 - 52.
Chicago KEPEZ Orçun Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 14, no.3 (2017): 41 - 52.
MLA KEPEZ Orçun Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.14, no.3, 2017, ss.41 - 52.
AMA KEPEZ O Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2017; 14(3): 41 - 52.
Vancouver KEPEZ O Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi. 2017; 14(3): 41 - 52.
IEEE KEPEZ O "Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio." A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 14, ss.41 - 52, 2017.
ISNAD KEPEZ, Orçun. "Post occupancy evaluation of a transformed design studio". A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 14/3 (2017), 41-52.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 9:16

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları