PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF OPEN AND CELL TYPE DESIGN STUDIOS. Umut Tuğlu Karsli Abstract Design studio courses take place at the core of education disciplinary design such as architecture and interior archi- tecture. Studios in which design studio courses are conducted can also be used for other practical courses as well. Another important feature of these studios is that they are extensively used by students for individual or group work other than during class hours. Since the students, either on their own or with the project coordinator, experience design process in these studios, their spatial characteristics are highly significant to conduct this process effectively. Within this scope, the aim of the research is to evaluate open and cell type studios commonly used in traditional architecture edu- cation through Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) approach, to discuss to what extent these studios meet the spatial requirements of today’s instructional methods and to develop a suggestion for design studio spatial use by taking the strengths and weaknesses of these studios. Accordingly, technical, physical and behavioral variables determining the performance of design studios within the context of spatial requirements have been identified through reviewing the related literature. In framework of a case study, a survey formed with the aforementioned variables was administered to architecture and interior architecture students studying in open and cell type design studios in order to measure their spatial performance. Followingly, in the final part of the study, referring to survey results and evaluation of spatial requirements of today’s instructional methods and tools, a combi design studio space organization has been suggest- ed. Keywords: Design Studio; Studio Spaces; Architectural Education; POE INTRODUCTION to architecture and design education. In traditional architecture and design education, design studio Design studios are accepted as the center of design courses take generally place in two types of studios education and also most significant physical space. in terms of spatial use: “open design studios” and The most common environment for teaching are “cell-type design studios”. The main difference classes where education practicers teach students between these types of environment is that one or by lecturing and assigning homework. Whereas, in two project groups have the course in “cell-type design studios, students are expected to offer solu- design studios”, whereas five- ten project groups tions to design problems assigned by the instructor share the same space in “open design studios” and they learn by working on projects (Oh et al. (Gur 2010). The physical and the psychological 2012). Schön (1985) suggests that the studio tradi- characteristics of design studios have a very impor- tion builds examples of practice and critical reflec- tant effect on design and learning to design activi- tion on practice, into the core experience of learn- ties. Providing indoor comfort conditions of these ing architectural design. The studio contains its own studios, arranging them according to the applied traditional events such as “design reviews”, “desk instructional methods/tools and users’ satisfaction crits” and “juries”, all of which have grown up of studio space are directly related to student per- around the central theme of practice in designing. formance (Yang et al. 2013; Dinç 2007; Demirbaş Besides, all or some of the methods such as prob- and Demirkan 2000). In this scope, the object of lem solving, discussion, individual working, demon- the research is to evaluate two type of studios stration, case study and lecturing can be conduct- through the approach of Post Occupancy ed in a design studio, which is very unusual in other Evaluation (POE), to identify their strengths and disciplines (Ketizmen 2003). The unique nature of weaknesses and to develop a combi design studio communication tools and instructional methods space organization embodying the strengths of used in design education implies that the spatial both types, meeting the spatial requirements of characteristics of studio environments, unlike com- today’s studio education. mon classrooms, should be specialized according 2 7 open house international Vol.41 No.1, March 2016. Performance Evaluation of Open and Cell Type Design Studios. 2. ThE PERFORMANCE VAR IABLES OF directly related to design studios, it is related to DES IGN STUDIO WIThIN ThE CON- study environment design. Stone (2001) suggests TExT OF SPAT IAL REqUIREMENTS that open-plan studios tend to be more flexible and increase social contact, leading to a loss of privacy Post-occupancy Evaluation (POE) is a method of and an increase in visual and auditory distractions. evaluating the performance of buildings and envi- Individuals tend to experience a loss of privacy ronments that have been established for many when they move from a private space to an open- years in order to consider the extent to which a plan design and an increase in privacy after mov- building or an environment satisfies the needs of its ing from an open-plan to private space. In open- end users and to identify ways in which design, per- plan design, the use of partitions can increase per- formance and fitness for purpose can be improved ceived privacy and satisfaction without eliminating (Turpin-Brooks and Viccars 2006). Performance is the flexibility of the open-plan design or auditory typically measured on three dimensions such as input. technical, functional and behavioral. The first mea- In this research, the spatial characteristics surement category, technical variables evaluates affecting the efficiency of the education that is being environmental aspects of the building. however, the experienced by the students who have studied in second addresses the user's ability to function effec- open and cell type design studios have been eval- tively and efficiently in the building or environment. uated through POE under the subtitles of technical, The third performance criterion refers to psycholog- functional and behavioral variables. ical and social aspects of user satisfaction and to the general well-being of building inhabitants 2.1. TEChNICAL VARIABLES (Preiser et al. 1988). There is a few and limited research about The first of the variables affecting the efficiency of the performance evaluation of open and cell type education process in design studios is “technical design studios within the context of spatial require- variables”. Environmental factors of the building ments. A research evaluating the design studios affect the process of learning and teaching. A poor through spatial variables belongs to Dinç (2007). performance of learning environment will have an Dinç hasn’t examined the studios as open and cell effect on both the understanding of the students type; she has come to the conclusions that are valid and the physical stress of the instructor. Also inade- for both types. According to quate lighting and thermal discomfort will have an Dinç, the variable that has the most impact effect on attention and student’s performance on space-student interaction is the confidence felt (Krüger and Zannin 2004). Within this context, for educational/social environment. The second lighting, acoustics, heating and ventilation condi- effective variable is perceptional characteristics of tions affecting the visual, acoustic, thermal comfort studio environment. Dinç suggests that functional and indoor air quality of the users of study environ- and technical factors has no a significant impact on ment can be considered as technical variables space-student interaction. (Yang et al. 2013). Lighting, the first one of these Demirbaş and Demirkan (2000) discuss technical variables, is vital since the design studios design studios by means of privacy, one of the are the places where the act of working is carried behavioral variables, in their research. Findings of out. In order to provide visual comfort in design stu- the research are that students need partitions for dios, the natural lighting possibility supported with more privacy, they place their desks in a way that artificial lighting is expected. The artificial lighting they can group with their close friends, columns, should provide sufficient general lighting as well as niches and corners in the place are important for local lighting in individual student work stations so students to make a place for themselves. that the students can fix the lightening level accord- Gur (2010) has identified students’ satis- ing to their needs. The second technical variable is faction with open and cell type design studios’ the acoustic quality of the environment. Designs physical environment and advantages and disad- studios are not only study environments but also a vantages of these studios regarding to their capa- complex social organization. There is a constant bility of meeting spatial requirements in her informational transfer and communication between research. As a result, Gur (2010) presents the com- the tutor and the students. Besides, design studios mon view of students as “an open design studio are sometimes supported with seminars. Therefore, with individualized space is the best form of study it is important to control the noise level in regard to environment and a flexible arrangement of space acoustic comfort and quality of communication. within the cell-type design studio will enhance their Dividing design studio working groups with light satisfaction with their working environment”. partitions covered with sound absorbing materials Although Stone’s research (2001) isn’t might increase the acoustic quality. The heating 2 8 open house international Vol.41 No.1, March 2016. Performance Evaluation of Open and Cell Type Design Studios. Umut Tuğlu Karsli and ventilation conditions of design studios are enced during jury works (Demirbaş and Demirkan another technical variable. Optimum heating and 2000). According to Voordt et al. (1997), privacy cooling level must be provided for thermal comfort and social contact are two sides of the same coin: in design studio. The necessary ventilation condi- self-determination and freedom of choice in enter- tions must be provided in order to supply a constant ing into or avoiding contacts. Too little contact fresh air circulation with regard to indoor air quali- leads to feelings of social isolation, too much con- ty; individual control possibility must be provided tact leads to feeling of crowding. Rosenfeld (1977) for users through openable windows (Ketizmen defines the appropriate learning environment as an 2002). environment which provide a variety of stimuli, be adaptive to the student activity and allow for some 2.2. FUNCTIONAL VARIABLES privacy. There are three types of privacy such as visual, auditive and social or territorial privacy. The A product is called functional when the means design studio should provide a comfortable work- which are used are suitable for the purpose. With ing environment for all these privacy types and reference to buildings, functionality may be defined social communication. The most effective solution as the degree to which the activities are supported for this is “flexibility”. It is necessary to create indi- by the environment (Voordt et al. 1997). The func- vidual working areas allowing some privacy tional variables in architectural design are issues required for design activities for the students. related with the position and organization of fur- however, since the design studio is the place where nishing equipments, their ergonomy, circulation the group and jury critics are conducted they are areas and spatial sizes (Demirbaş 1997). In design also communication environments. Therefore studios there is a need for individual student work- design studios are working environments that must stations where students can work on their own, be designed flexibly so that they can both provide group critic areas arranged according to collective privacy and social contact. works and discussions and finally meeting areas required for project presentations, jury critics and 3. METhOD seminars. Moreover, spaces for model making, 3.1. PLACE computer use etc. which are necessary for today’s design studios and a library environment contain- The research was conducted at Doğuş University ing up to date professional publications are includ- Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, with third and ed in the studio (Ketizmen 2002). The desks used in fourth year design studio students of department of the design studio must be large enough both for architecture and interior architecture in open studio drawing and model making and the seats must be (no:9) and cell-type studios (no:2, 3, 4, 5 and 6). convenient for long working hours, comfortable The students of both departments use these studios and ergonomic. The height of the desks and the as design studios on different days of the week for seats should be fixed ergonomically according to eight hours. The open studio is 180m2 and hosts 5 each user for the efficiency of the work (Pheasant project groups. Each of the cell type studios is 2002). It is important for the functional quality of 45m2 and hosts a single or two project groups. space that the desks and seats are positioned in a way that do not prevent user circulation in the stu- 3.2. SURVEY dio. Likewise, the dimension of design studio is closely related with an efficient education. A highly In the research, a survey prepared as 3 parts and populated design studio results in communication consisting of 20 questions was administered to problems and it decreases the efficiency (Dinç architecture and interior architecture students only 2007). who had this course in both type of studios. In accordance with Post-occupancy evaluation 2.3. BEhAVIORAL VARIABLES approach, each part of the survey aiming to mea- sure the technical, physical and behavioral perfor- Another variable affecting the spatial performance mances of open and cell type design studios was of design studios is behavioral variables. The fac- about one of these variables. Each variable was tors that affect behavioral variables are “environ- separated in components and questioned through mental themes” and “personal characteristics”. 5-point Likert scale. In this survey, the students were Environmental differences and different characteris- asked to determine to what extent open and cell tics of individuals cause different behavioral vari- type studios met the aforementioned spatial ables for each user. Two features are expected from requirements and they were asked to tick one of the a design studio: the privacy needed during design- answers “very low (1), low (2), moderate (3), high ing/drawing and social communication experi- (4) and very high (5)”. Since it was not possible to 2 9 open house international Vol.41 No.1, March 2016. Performance Evaluation of Open and Cell Type Design Studios. Umut Tuğlu Karsli make an analysis based on the features of the par- ticipants, the data related to gender and demogra- phy were not included in the survey. The survey was applied to students in the middle of 2013-2014 fall term and at the beginning of the design studio course. The number of students who participated in the survey was 52. 3.3. ANALYSIS In the analysis of the responds, first of all, reliability coefficient was calculated. Therefore, the consisten- cy of values among themselves was analyzed. Figure 1 - 2. Figure 1. Values Related to Technical Performance of Open Studio Environment Figure 2. Values (α=.75). This value provided the lower limit such as Related to Technical Performance of Cell Type Studio 0,70 identified in literature (Cronbach 1990; Punch Environment 2005). After that, values for each variable were The research about functional performance of obtained and each component constituting the open and cell type studios consisted of 10 compo- variable were ranged from the highest value to the nents. At the end of the research, the functional per- lowest value and therefore, the positive and nega- formance of open design studio was (2.97) and the tive components of each variable were identified. functional performance of cell type design studios The research findings were obtained from the was (2.28) in total. In open design studio, jury- analysis made through SPSS 21.0 packaged soft- meeting possibility (Mean=3.90 SD=1.05), group ware on data gained from participants. working possibility (Mean=3.73 SD=1.03), dimension of the studio (Mean=3.69 SD=1.02), 4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ease of circulation (Mean=3.52 SD=1.12), com- 4.1. FINDINGS RELATED TO TEChNICAL fort of seats (Mean=3.00 SD=0.65) and comfort PERFORMANCE OF OPEN AND CELL of drawing desks (Mean=2.98 SD=0.63) compo- TYPE DESIGN STUDIOS nents got a value over average whereas computer using possibility (Mean=2.46 SD=1.07), individ- The research about the technical performance of ual working possibility (Mean=2.44 SD=0.91), open and cell type design studios consisted of 5 model making possibility (Mean=2.42 SD=1.09) components. At the end of the research, technical and library using possibility (Mean=1.71 performance of the open design studio was (2.54) SD=0.72) components got a value under average. and the technical performance of cell type studios In cell type design studios individual working possi- was (3.06) in total. In open design studio, the visu- bility (Mean=3.73 SD=1.17), comfort of drawing al comfort (artificial lighting) (Mean=3.25 desks (Mean=2.62 SD=0.71), comfort of seats SD=1.10) and indoor air quality (Mean=3.13 (Mean=2.60 SD=0.74) and ease of circulation SD=1.29) components got a value over average (Mean=2.35 SD=0.81) got a value over average whereas thermal comfort (Mean=2.27 SD=0.84), whereas group working possibility (Mean=2.27 acoustic comfort (Mean=2.21 SD=0.93) and visu- SD=0.75), dimension of the studio (Mean=2.06 al comfort (natural lighting) (Mean=1.87 SD=0.93), jury-meeting possibility (Mean=1.90 SD=0.90) components got values under average. In cell type design studios visual comfort (natural lighting) (Mean=3.38 SD=0.86), visual comfort (artificial lighting) (Mean=3.25 SD=0.78), thermal comfort (Mean=3.19 SD=0.90) and acoustic comfort (Mean=3.12 SD=0.83) components got a value over average whereas indoor air quality (Mean=2.38 SD=0.91) component got a value under average. The values related to technical per- formance of open and cell type studio environ- ments are shown in figure 1 and 2. 4.2.FINDINGS RELATED TO FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE OF OPEN Figure 3 - 4. Figure 3. Values Related to Functional AND CELL TYPE DESIGN STUDIOS Performance of Open Studio Environment Figure 4. Values Related to Functional Performance of Cell Type Studio Environment. 3 0 open house international Vol.41 No.1, March 2016. Performance Evaluation of Open and Cell Type Design Studios. Umut Tuğlu Karsli SD=0.93), model making possibility (Mean=1.88 SD=0.73), computer using possibility (Mean=1.85 SD=0.69) and library using possibil- ity (Mean=1.40 SD=0.53) components got a value under average. The values related to func- tional performance of open and cell type studio environments are shown in figure 3 and 4. 4.3. FINDINGS RELATED TO BEhAVIORAL PERFORMANCE OF OPEN AND CELL TYPE DESIGN STUDIOS The research about the behavioral performance of Figure 5 - 6. Figure 5. Values Related to Behavioral Performance of Open Studio Environment Figure 6. Values open and cell type design studios consisted of 5 Related to Behavioral Performance of Cell Type Studio components. At the end of the research, the behav- Environment. ioral performance of open design studio was (2.78) and the behavioral performance of cell type design vided with natural light which might not reach to the studios was (2.87) in total. In open design studio, deep parts of the studio. social contact (Mean=3.87 SD=1.06) and com- -Visual comfort (artificial lighting) component has munication (Mean=3.63 SD=1.01) components got a positive value for both type of studios. The got a value over average whereas order reason for this might be that sufficient artificial light- (Mean=2.44 SD=0.75), possibility to make a cor- ing precautions are taken in both studios. ner (Mean=2.08 SD=0.88) and privacy -Acoustic comfort component has got a positive (Mean=1.92 SD=0.81) components got a value value for cell type studio whereas it has got a neg- under average. In cell type design studios privacy ative value for open studio. The reason for this (Mean=3.52 SD=1.21) and possibility to make a might be that, unlike cell type studio, in open stu- corner (Mean=3.46 SD=1.22) components got a dio many groups work together in the same space value over average whereas communication without any partitions. (Mean=2.73 SD=1.03), order (Mean=2.37 -Thermal comfort component got a positive value SD=0.84) and social contact (Mean=2.31 for cell type studio whereas it got a negative value SD=0.80) components got a value under average. for open studio. The reason for this might be that The values related to behavioral performances of open studio, unlike cell type studio, has a huge open and cell type studios are shown in figure 5 space which cannot be heated easily and it might and 6. not have sufficient technical conditions.-Indoor air quality component has got a positive 4.4. DISCUSSION value for open studio whereas it has got a negative value for cell type studio. The reason for this might In this subtitle, the reasons for the findings obtained be that, unlike open type studio, cell type studio has at the end of the survey have been discussed. The a small space, it might not have constant fresh air comparative evaluation of the strengths and weak- circulation and it does not provide an individual nesses of open and cell type design studios has control possibility. been used as pre-data to suggest a combi design studio having the strong features of both studios. With regard to functional performance; Within this scope, why 3 spatial performance vari- ables and components constituting each of these -Individual working possibility component has got a variables have been assessed either negatively or positive value for cell type studio whereas it has got positively for open and cell type design studios have a negative value for open studio. The reason for been interpreted as: this might be that students can easily study in cell type studios during course hours and in their free With regard to technical performance; time, whereas students might have concentration problems while they are developing their design -Visual comfort (natural lighting) component has individually in open type studios due to the reason got a positive value for cell type studio whereas it that these studios have no individual spaces has got a negative value for open studio. The rea- reserved only for them or spaces divided by parti- son for this might be that cell type studios are pro- tions. vided with controlled natural light whereas open -Group working possibility component has got a studios due to their depth of plan (10 m.) are pro- positive value for open studio whereas it has got a negative value for cell type studio. The reason for 3 1 open house international Vol.41 No.1, March 2016. Performance Evaluation of Open and Cell Type Design Studios. Umut Tuğlu Karsli this might be that in cell type studios the courses are ner for themselves and have privacy. carried out as a single group and desk critics -Communication and social contact components whereas in open studio, the course is carried out have got positive value in open studio whereas they with many groups through constant communication have got negative value in cell type studio. The rea- and jury critics. son for this might be that in cell type studio a single -Jury-meeting possibility component has got a pos- group can work whereas in open type studio, many itive value for open studio whereas it has got a neg- groups have the chance to work altogether in one ative value for cell type studio. The reason for this space. might be that unlike open studio, there is no space -Order component has got a negative value for in cell type studio for different groups or tutors to both studio types. This component is one of the come together and make jury critics or to give sem- most significant behavioral components to obtain inars. efficiency from working and learning activities. The -Computer using possibility component has got a fact that students feel lack of order in both studios negative value for both studio types. The reason for and this might be considered as a result of all tech- this might be that there might not be a sufficient nical, functional and behavioral malfunctions. technical infrastructure enabling students to use computers in both studio types. 5. A SUGGESTION FOR A COMBI -Model making possibility component has got a DESIGN STUDIO negative value for both studio types. The reason for this might be that, in cell type studios there is not The different education philosophies of design sufficient space for model making and although schools and different instructional methods of tutors open studio has sufficient space, it does not have a create different spatial requirements with regard to definite space divided by partitions for model mak- studios. Besides, the developing technology and ing and storages. new learning methods come up as data which -Library using possibility component has got a neg- change the spatial requirements of the studios. ative value for both type of studios. The reason for Today, design studios are not only environments of this might be that there is no space for a real or vir- information transfer and social contact, but also the tual library in both studio types; besides, studios social organizations where creativity is stimulated. and main library are located in different blocks. The most important reason for this is the fact that -Comfort of drawing desks and seats components they provide different environments than traditional have got a positive value for both studio types. The design studios with regard to tutor-student commu- reason for this might be that there are large enough nication, information acquisition and instructional drawing desks and ergonomic seats in both studio methods. In opposition to being a physical place types. where design information is defined and transferred -Ease of circulation component has got a positive through clichés and patterns, a design studio is a value for both studios. The reason might be that in place where new design information and ideas are both studios circulation and working spaces are created all together; it is a collective and productive arranged comfortably and in a net way. environment (Paker Kahvecioglu 2007). The unify- -Dimension of the studio component has got a pos- ing effect of the physical environment plays a sig- itive value for open studio and it has got a negative nificant role in this collective environment. Within value for cell type studio. The reason might be that this scope, the traditional cell type and open design cell studio is 45m2 whereas open type studio is studios where only critics are made can be changed 180m2. into combi design studios to meet the spatial requirements of new education methods and tools With regard to behavioral performance; shaped with technology. A combi design studio is meant to be a flexible space incorporating both - Both privacy and possibility to make corner com- open and closed spaces. Within this scope, consid- ponents have got positive values for cell type studio ering aforementioned spatial requirements and whereas they have got negative values for open stu- findings obtained from survey, a combi design stu- dio. As far as it is observed, in cell type studios, the dio combining the strong sides of both open and students can make a corner for themselves by cell type studios might be developed. The spatial putting their personal stuff such as bags, drawing characteristics expected from combi studio with materials etc. as borders thus they can work indi- regard to technical, functional and behavioral vidually without being interrupted by external fac- aspects are identified below: tors. however, in huge volume of open type studio since the students do not have individual working Spatial characteristics with regard to technical vari- spaces, they don’t have the chance to make a cor- ables: 3 2 open house international Vol.41 No.1, March 2016. Performance Evaluation of Open and Cell Type Design Studios. Umut Tuğlu Karsli Having a plan depth enabling the access of con- All these environments, being in a single volume trolled natural light, but divided with light partitions change the design studios into a laboratory and places of communi- Providing the local lighting possibility for individual cation in accordance with today’s design education working spaces in addition to sufficient general approaches. lighting, Spatial characteristics with regard to behavioral Dividing the different work places with light and flex- variables: ible partitions covered with sound absorbing mate- rials, Today, due to the changing trends in design educa- tion, design studios have become creative places of The use of combi studio providing individual control communication, cooperation, interaction, partici- over heating, cooling and ventilation conditions can pation and production of new information. The stu- be offered. dents also use design studios for individual work in their free time. Combi studios can provide the pos- Spatial characteristics with regard to functional vari- sibility to communicate and share while the students ables: are developing projects and it can also provide order and privacy while the students are working -Design education is a problem solving focused individually. In combi studios, all students can par- education. There should be flexible places for desk, ticipate in critics, make models, watch seminars all group and jury critics which are accepted as com- together and they can also work individually in munication tools in design studios. working spaces divided with partitions. -Since design studios are also the places where stu- dents work in their free time, there is a need for 6. CONCLUSION individual working spaces divided from each other with light separators and these spaces should have The studios, where the design studio courses known ergonomic desks and seats. as the core of architecture and design education -In today’s design studios, the projects can be sup- are carried out, have a significant role in the effec- ported with seminars; the project juries can be real- tive execution of these courses. Open and cell type ized at the end of the term and projects can be studios hosting traditional design studio courses up exhibited. Within this frame, it would be beneficial to now, do not completely meet the requirements of to create a meeting place with a necessary sound today’s design pedagogy. In this research, first of all insulation in the design studio space. the technical, functional and behavioral require- -The possibility to access sample projects can be ments of studios in today’s architecture education provided by separating a small area for virtual or a are identified and the extent to which traditional real library. open and cell type studios meet these requirements -“Over the past decade there have been exten- have been investigated through POE survey sive applications of computer and information applied to the students. At the end of this research, technology in design pedagogy. This has led to the a suggestion for a combi studio incorporating the emergence of several underlying trends, such as strong features of open and cell type studios has paperless studio and the virtual studio” (Salama been developed. In today’s design studios, it is fun- and Wilkinson 2007:309). Due to these new trends damental that the design information is produced shaped by the developing technology, the traditions by tutor and students together. Moreover, the tutors, of design studio go into a change, which makes due to nature of architectural education, apply a computer use obligatory. mix system combining many instructional methods -Another trend applied in today’s design studios is instead of a single one. Therefore, designing stu- “learning by building” approach.Similar to archi- dios, as combi studios fulfilling the need of constant tecture practice, in “learning by building” communication plays an important role to meet approach, first of all, the idea is put forward; the spatial requirements of all methods. In this context, idea is concretized and becomes three dimension- a space organization for combi design studio is al; the space is experienced and if necessary, it is suggested. This design will have working and indi- possible to go back to idea and restart the process vidual working places divided with flexible partitions (Carpenter 1997:8). This approach requires work- providing the possibility for seminars, critics, model ing spaces for students to work with models and making, library and it will also provide social con- storage places. tact and communication for students in a single vol- ume. Moreover, it will meet the need of privacy and to make corners through individual working spaces 3 3 open house international Vol.41 No.1, March 2016. Performance Evaluation of Open and Cell Type Design Studios. Umut Tuğlu Karsli divided with separators. The developing technolo- PAKER KAhVECIOGLU, N. 2007, Architectural design studio gy, the changing education methods and materials organization and creativity, ITU A/Z, 4:2, 6-26. make the nature of architecture education much more dynamic and this shifting structure requires PhEASANT, S. 2002, Bodyspace, anthropometry, ergonomics more flexible design studio spaces. and the design of work, Taylor & Francis, GB. PREISER, W., RABINOWITZ, h. and WhITE, E. 1988, Post- Occupancy Evaluation, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. REFERENCES PUNCh, K. 2005, Introduction to Social Research - Quantitive and Qualitive Approach, Second Ed., Sage Publications Inc., CARPENTER, W.J. 1997, Learning by Building: Design and California. Construction in Architectural Education, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. ROSENFELD, L.B. 1977, Setting the stage for learning, Theory into Practice, 16, 167-173. CRONBACh, L.J. I990, Essentials of Psychological Testing, Fifth Ed., harper Collins, New York. SALAMA, A.M. and WILKINSON, N. 2007, Introduction: Digital Technologies and the Studio, in: A. M. Salama, N. DEMIRBAŞ, O.O. 1997, Design Studio as a Life Space, Bilkent Wilkinson (Eds) Design Pedagogy: horizons for the Future, The University Institute of Sciences Master’s thesis, Ankara. Urban International Press, UK. DEMIRBAŞ, O. O. and DEMIRKAN, h. 2000, Privacy dimen- SChÖN, D. 1985, The Design Studio, RIBA Publications Ltd., sions: a case study in the interior architecture design studio, London. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 53-64. STONE, N.J. 2001, “Designing effective study environ- DINÇ, P. 2007, Mimari tasarım stüdyosunda mekânsal- ment”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 179-190. davranışsal değişkenlerin öğrenci-mekân etkileşimindeki rolü (Effects of spatial-behavioral variables on student-space ınter- TURPIN-BROOKS, S. and VICCARS, G. 2006, The develop- actions in architectural design studio spaces), Journal of Fac. ment of robust methods of post occupancy evaluation, Eng. Arch. Gazi Univ., 22:4, 837-845. Facilities, 24 :5/6, 177-196. GUR, E. 2010, Open and cell-type design studios: Their VOORDT T.J.M., VRIELINK D. and WEGEN h.B.R. 1997, ımpact on architectural education, International Journal of Comparative floorplan-analysis in programming and architec- Architectural Research, 4:2-3, 216-224. tural design, Design Studies, 18, 67-88. KETIZMEN, G. 2002, Mimari Tasarım Stüdyosunun YANG Z., BECERIK-GERBER B. and MINO L. 2013, A study Biçimlenmesinde Yöntemsel ve Mekânsal Etkilerin İncelenmesi on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: impact (The Investigation of Methodological and Spatial Effects on the of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and perfor- Formation of Architectural Design Studios), Anadolu University mance, Building and Environment, 70, 171-188. Institute of Sciences Master’s Thesis, Eskişehir. KETIZMEN, G. 2003, Mimari tasarım stüdyosunda çalışma yöntemleri: Anadolu Üniversitesi mimarlık bölümü örneği (Working methods on architectural design studio: the example of Anadolu University department of architecture), Ege Mimarlık, 47, 32-34. KRÜGER, E.L. and ZANNIN, P.h.T. 2004, Acoustic, thermal and luminous comfort in classrooms, Building and Environment, 39, 1055-1063. Oh Y. et al. 2012, A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios, Author(s): Umut Tuğlu Karsli Design Studies, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.destud. 2012 Doğuş University, Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, .08.004. Acibadem, Kadikoy, 34722, Istanbul, Turkey Email: utuglu@dogus.edu.tr, umuttuglu@hotmail.com 3 4 open house international Vol.41 No.1, March 2016. Performance Evaluation of Open and Cell Type Design Studios. Umut Tuğlu Karsli