Summary
The objective of this study is to examine the effects of the “digital turn” experienced in higher education on introductory design education and the role of digital literacy in the development of design literacy skills of first-year architecture students. The study raises the following research questions: What are the implications of the growing engagement of first-year design students with digital tools/platforms for (1) reconceptualizing the notion of design, and (2) reconsidering models for design learning and knowledge production? Methodologically, this examination will dwell on the case study analysis of ARCH 101 design studio practices of 2021–2022 academic year executed in two different Bachelor of Architecture programs at Özyeğin University Department of Architecture and Middle East Technical University Department of Architecture, which we have experienced as first-year design studio tutors. The use of digital tools and platforms as both representation and generative design tools, as well as its contribution to structuring the studio organization, project submissions, and assessment practices such as weekly design crits and juries will be examined. In addition, how the development of students’ ability to use these digital tools and platforms affects their design skills will be evaluated both through student studies and the tutors’ on-site observations and reflective evaluations.
Derya Yorgancıoğlu* & Esin Kömez Dağlıoğlu~
*Özyeğin University
~Daglioglu Middle East Technical University
Turkey
derya.yorgancioglu@ozyegin.edu.tr
komez@metu.edu.tr
By the end of the 90s, the field of higher education has witnessed the widespread use of digital technology tools and platforms, which gained momentum in the 2000s and is defined as the “digital turn.” In the literature, the digital turn as an ongoing process is associated with the concepts such as “digital literacy” (Gilster, 1997) and “knowledge economy” (Pacione 2010). Digital literacy and digital learning have essential implications for design literacy that is defined as “empowering individuals to use multiple modes of knowledge to produce material word” (Nielsen and Brænne, 2013). Within this framework, more emphasis is given to the development of “design thinking” skill as an essential component of 21st century learning approaches that promotes getting aware of real-life problems and developing alternative solutions for them (Razzouk and Shute, 2012; Koh et al., 2015). It is observed that this issue is considered as a fundamental issue in the strategic planning of education at all levels. Directive document by the European Design Leadership Board (EDLB), 2012, is a striking example in which the growing significance of design literacy for educational planning is made manifest: it is mentioned that due to the “revolutionary impact” of “today’s rapid development of digital networks and communications technologies” on the society, educational policies should consider to “raise the level of design literacy for all the citizens of Europe by fostering a culture of design learning for all at every level of the education system” and to “encourage Member States to support the development of design competencies for the 21st century by embedding the strategic role of design across disciplines in higher education.”
Particularly, the COVID-19 pandemic experienced worldwide in 2019 has revealed how vital the skills of digital literacy and learning nourished through design thinking are, both in the realms of individual/social life and professional/academic practice. It is observed that the effective use of digital platforms and tools will persist in the post-pandemic period, pointing to the emergence of a new learning paradigm (in terms of skills and mindset) in education at all levels. In this context, the role of design literacy within the framework of today’s digitalized world and knowledge-empowered economy becomes a topic of research in higher education and, particularly in design education.
In the last 3 years, within the framework of the conditions revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic, we as design studio tutors experienced 3 different teaching/learning models at the studio: We had to transform the face-to-face design education of the 2019 fall semester of into “emergency remote teaching” (Green et al., 2020; Asadpour, 2021) in the spring term of 2020, and we continued in this way for 3 terms; In the fall and spring semesters of 2021-2022, we physically returned to the campus, but we mostly conducted “hybrid” (Wolford et al., 2021; Guppy et al., 2022) design education as the pandemic conditions partially continued. While the last 3 years have provoked us to explore the effective and improvable aspects of traditional design studio pedagogy and to develop alternative teaching/learning strategies, this process also underscored the importance of digital literacy in the development of design skills of architecture students. The contributions of digital design literacy to students’ adaptation to educational technology and emerging digitalized (design) learning models has become more observable.
The objective of this study is to examine the effects of the “digital turn” experienced in higher education on introductory design education and the role of digital literacy in the development of design literacy skills of first-year architecture students. The study raises the following research questions: What are the implications of the growing engagement of first-year design students with digital tools/platforms for (1) reconceptualizing the notion of design, and (2) reconsidering models for design learning and knowledge production? Methodologically, this examination will dwell on the case study analysis of ARCH 101 design studio practices of 2021–2022 academic year executed in two different Bachelor of Architecture programs at Özyeğin University Department of Architecture and Middle East Technical University Department of Architecture, which we have experienced as first-year design studio tutors. The use of digital tools and platforms as both representation and generative design tools, as well as its contribution to structuring the studio organization, project submissions, and assessment practices such as weekly design crits and juries will be examined. In addition, how the development of students’ ability to use these digital tools and platforms affects their design skills will be evaluated both through student studies and the tutors’ on-site observations and reflective evaluations.
References
Asadpour, A. (2021). Student challenges in online architectural design courses in Iran during the COVID-19 pandemic. E-Learning and Digital Media. https://doi.org/10.1177/20427530211022923
Bolinas, J. C. F. (July 2022). Mapping current research and future directions of Design Literacy with systematic quantitative literature review (SQLR). Design and Technology Education: an International Journal, [S.l.], v. 27, n. 2, p. 92-114. Available at: <https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/3104>. Date accessed: 11 sep. 2022.
Bower, M. (2017). Design Thinking and Learning Design. In Design of Technology-Enhanced Learning (pp. 121-158). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1- 78714-182-720171008
Bohemia, E. and Ghassan, A. (2011). “Opening Doors Broadening Designers’ Skill Set,” Diversity and Unity: Proceedings of IASDRD2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research, N. F. M. Roozenburg & P. J. Stappers (Eds.), 31 October-4 November, Delft, the Netherlands.
Buckingham, D. (2015). “Defining digital literacy What do young people need to know about digital media?” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 4, 21–34. DOI: 10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2006-04-03
Burdick, A., & Willis, H. (2011). Digital learning, digital scholarship and design thinking. Design Studies, 32(6), 546-556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.005
Cross, N., (1982) Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), pp. 221-227.
Donaldson, J., & Smith, B. (2017). Design thinking, designerly ways of knowing, and engaged learning. Learning, Design, and Technology: An International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_73-1
Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). “Digital Literacy: A Conceptual Framework for Survival Skills in the Digital Era,” Jl. of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1),93-106.
European Commission. (2012). the European Design Leadership Board’s (EDLB) design directive: Designed for growth: Design to push innovation.
Gilster, P. (1997), Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publications.
Green, J.K., Burrow, M.S., & Carvalho, L. (2020). “Designing for transition: Supporting teachers and students cope with emergency remote education,” Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 906–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00185
Guppy, N., Verpoorten, D., Boud, D., Lin, L., Tai, J., & Bartolic, S. (2022). The post-COVID-19 future of digital learning in higher education: Views from educators, students, and other professionals in six countries. British Journal of Educational Technology, 00, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13212
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B. and Hong, Huang-Yao (2015). “Chapter 3: Design Thinking and 21st Century Skills” In, Design Thinking for Education; Conceptions and Applications in Teaching and Learning (pp. 33-46), Springer.
Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2015). “Digital Literacy and Digital Literacies: Policy, Pedagogy and Research Considerations for Education” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 4, p. 8–20. DOI: 10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-2015-Jubileumsnummer-02
Lawson, B. (2006). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified (4th ed.). Amsterdam, Boston, London, New York: Architectural Press.
Lerner, F. (2018). Visual‐Spatial Art and Design Literacy as a Prelude to Aesthetic Growth. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(1), 65-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12110
Lutnæs, E. (2020). Empowering Responsible Design Literacy: Identifying Narratives in a New Curriculum. RChD: creación y pensamiento, 5(8), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719- 837X.2020.56120
Nielsen, L. M., & Brænne, K. (2013). Design literacy for longer lasting products. Inside Making, 09. http://materialthinking.org/papers/125
Pacione, C. (2010). Evolution of the mind: A case for design literacy. Interactions, 17(2), 6-11. https://doi.org/10.1145/1699775.1699777
Pacione, C. (2017). Let’s Do Right by Design by Helping Everyone Else Do Design Right. Design Management Review, 28(4), 29-31. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/RJVURMC5ZU3EZKSSFGSA?target=10.1111/drev. 12098
Pangrazio, L. (2016). Reconceptualising critical digital literacy. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 37(2), 163-174
Poggenpohl, S. H. (2008). Design literacy, discourse and communities of practice. Visible language, 42(3), 213. https://www.proquest.com/docview/232913459?pqorigsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of educational research, 82(3), 330-348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
Rowe, P.G., (1987) Design thinking. The MIT Press, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Yorgancıoğlu, D., & Tunali, S. (2020). Critique’s Role in the Development of Design Literacy in Beginning Design Education. RChD: creación y pensamiento, 5(8), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-837X.2020.57651
Wolford, C., Zhao, Y., Kashyap, S., and Gray, C. M. (2021), Critique assemblages in response to emergency hybrid studio pedagogy, in Bohemia, E., Nielsen, L.M., Pan, L., Börekçi, N.A.G.Z., Zhang, Y. (eds.), Learn X Design 2021: Engaging with challenges in design education, 24-26 September, Shandong University of Art & Design, Jinan, China. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.14.171
Derya Yorgancıoğlu received her B.Arch degree from Yıldız Technical University (YTU) Department of Architecture (2000), and M.Arch (2004) and Ph.D. (2010) degrees in Architecture from Middle East Technical University (METU) Department of Architecture, Turkey. She took part in numerous research projects as a Ph.D. student at the Unit for Strategy Development in Education and Research, the Research and Implementation Centre for Built Environment and Design (RICBED) of METU Faculty of Architecture between 2006-2010. She worked as the founding chair of the Department of Architecture at Kemerburgaz University between 2011-2017. She is currently working at Özyeğin University Department of Architecture. She conducted short term research studies at Queen’s University of Belfast, Center for Educational Development (CED) in 2017 and Indiana University, Bloomington, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning in 2018 as a visiting researcher. She conducted a two-year research project (215K234) funded by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) on the topic of teaching and learning as a reflective practice in architectural education. Her research interests cover the fields of theory and research in architecture, architectural education, design studio pedagogy, learning space design, scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education.
Esin Komez Daglioglu is assistant professor at the Architecture department at the Middle East Technical University, Turkey. She received her bachelor and master degrees magna cum laude from Middle East Technical University (METU) Department of Architecture where she also worked as a research and teaching assistant from 2008 to 2012. She completed her PhD research in 2017 at Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), Department of Architecture where she also taught design and theory courses at the Chair of Architectural Composition and Public Building. Among others, she has published in the Architectural Theory Review, METU JFA and OASE. Esin’s research areas include architectural design education, postwar and postmodern architectural and urban theory.
back to the Symposium Programme
