 |
customer@davidpublishing.com |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Hybrid Architecture: A Studio-Based Pedagogical Framework for Digital Architectural Design
Riccardo Balbo
Full-Text PDF
XML 1422 Views
DOI:10.17265/1934-7359/2024.08.001
IED Turin, via San Quintino 39, Torino 10121, Italy
This article intends to bring a new perspective to the discussion of how studio-based education in architectural studies can improve its quality by embedding meta-tools as paradigmatic frameworks as a learning/teaching strategy. The newly emerging creative and collaborative digital design tools and systems led to the re-shaping and re-definition of the traditional studio-based teaching/learning processes. The shift does not only comprise of a newly gained ability of using “design toolkits”, but also has substantial cognitive and pedagogical implications. The paper presents, describes and discusses the application of a new pedagogical approach through the application of a novel knowledge framework, that has been used in the teaching of DAD (Digital Architectural Design) in the context of a master’s level course.
Architectural education, design pedagogy, digital architectural design.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 18 (2024) 363-372 doi: 10.17265/1934-7359/2024.08.001
[1] Cunningham, A. 2005. “Notes on Education and Research around Architecture.” Journal of Architecture 10 (4): 415-41.
[2] Dutton, T. A. 1987. “Design and Studio Pedagogy.” Journal of Architectural Education 41 (1): 16-25.
[3] Oxman, R. 2008. “Digital Architecture as a Challenge for Design Pedagogy: Theory, Knowledge, Models and Medium.” Design Studies 29 (2): 99-120.
[4] Allen, S. 2012. “The Future That Is Now.” In Architecture School: Three Centuries of Educating Architects in North America, edited by J. Ockman and R. Williamson. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 204-29.
[5] Kocaturk, T., and Kiviniemi, A. 2013. “Challenges of Integrating BIM in Architectural Education.” In Proceedings of the 31st eCAADe Conference (Vol. 2). Brussels: eCAADe, pp. 465-73.
[6] Kocaturk, T. 2006. “Modelling Collaborative Knowledge in Digital Free-Form Design.” PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.
[7] de Landa, M. 2000. A Thousand Years of Non-linear History. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
[8] Arthur, W. B. 2009. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. London: Penguin Books.
[9] Oxman, R. 2005. “Theory and Design in the First Digital Age.” Design Studies 27 (3): 229-65.
[10] Zevi, B. 1994. The Modern Language of Architecture. Cambridge: Da Capo Press.
[11] Jong, T. D., and Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. 1986. “Cognitive Structures of Good and Poor Novice Problem Solvers in Physics.” Journal of Educational Psychology 78 (2): 279-88.
[12] Lawson, B. 1980. How Designers Think. London: Routledge.
[13] Eastman, C. M., McCracken, W. M., and Newstetter, W. C. 2001. Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[14] Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[15] Piaget, J. 1971. Psychology and Epistemology. New York: Grossman.
[16] Kocaturk, T., and Veltkamp, M. 2005. “Interdisciplinary Knowledge Modeling for Free-Form Design—An Educational Experiment.” In Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures 2005. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 465-74.
[17] Lawson, B. 1997. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified (3rd ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.
[18] Mitchell, W. J. 1990. The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation, and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[19] Balbo, R., Kocaturk, T., and Veliz, A. 2013. “Hybrid Architecture: Coupling Structural Understanding and Architectural Education.” In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference in Architecture and Structures, Guimarães, Portugal, July 2013.