The Difficulties of DESIGN TRAIN-ing

Nazan Kirci


This study is proposed within the framework of the “Designtrain” project.*  First year architecture students have difficulties to adapt to the new language of architectural discourse because of their individual capabilities and adequacies or because of the departments’ methodology of teaching.  This study, which has been based on ten architecture departments in Turkey, has been formed to reveal these difficulties from the students’ point of view by means of a survey.  This survey consists of interpretative questions that are related to the pre-requisites of vocational education, difficulties in learning, the evaluation of students’ comprehension of basic design principles and various difficulties of educational process.


vocation, first year architectural education, basic design, technical drawing, student proposals

Full Text:



Blumrich J. F. (1970). Design, Science, New Series, 168 (3939), 1551-1554.

Busatoa, V. V., Prinsb, F. J., Elshouta, J. J. and Hamakera, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher educatio, Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1057-1068.

Cartier, P. (2011). Most valuable aspects of educational expectations of the students in design education, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, WCES, 15, 2187–2191.

Chen J.D., Heylighen A., & Neuckermans H. (2006). Learning Design Teaching,In: Al-Qawasmi Vasquez de Velasco G. J. (eds), Changing Trends in Architectural Design Education, Proceedings of CSAAR 2006--First International Conference of the Center for the Study of Architecture in the Arab Region (CSAAR), Rabat, Morocco, 14-16 nov 2006, 577-588

Cross N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227.

Cross N. (1991). Research in design thinking, Design Studies, 12, 3–10

Crysler, C. G. (1995). Critical Pedagogy and Architectural Education, Journal of Architectural Education, 48( 4), 208-217

Danacı, H. M.( 2015). Creativity and knowledge in architectural education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1309 – 1312

Demirkan H. & Afacan, Y. (2012). Assessing creativity in design education: Analysis of creativity factors in the first-year design studio, Design Studies, 33, 262-278. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2011.11.005

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its Application, Design Studies, 32, 521-532.

Dorst K. & Dijkhuis J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16 (2), 261-274.

Farivarsadri,G. (2001). A Critical View On Pedagogical Dimension Of Introductory Design In Architectural Education, AEE, -Architectural Education Exchange, Architectural Educators: Responding to Change, 11-12 September 2001, Cardiff, England. .

Farsidesa, T. & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: the roles of personality, intelligence, and application, Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1225–1243

Glanville R. (1999). Researching design and designing research, Design Issues, 15 (2), Design Reserach, 80-91.

Glasser, D. E. (2000). Reflections on architectural education, Journal of Architectural Education, 53:4, 250-252. doi: 10.1162/104648800564662

Lawson, B (1997). How designers think: the design process demystified, Oxford: Architectural Press.

Oxman, R. (1999) Educating the designerly thinker, Design Studies, 20(2) 105–122.

Oxman, R. (2004) Think-maps: teaching design thinking in design education, Design Studies, 25, 63–91. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00033-4

Polanyi M. (2009). The tacit dimension, with a new foreword by Amartya Sen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Roberts, A. (2006). Cognitive styles and student progression in architectural design education, Design Studies 27 167-181. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2005.07.001

Schon, D (1985) The design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications.

Schön, D. (1990). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 1990

Quayle M. (1985). Idea book for teaching design. Mesa: Arizona, PDA Publisher Corporation, 109

Soh, K. (2017) Fostering student creativity through tutor behaviors, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 58–66

Ulusoy, Z. (1999) To design versus to understand design: the role of graphic representations and verbal expressions, Design Studies, 20, 123–130.PII: S0142-694X(98)00030-1


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

REMIE - Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research | ISSN: 2014-2862

Depósito Legal: B.34290-2012 | |