Learning by Cognitive Construction

When an educational system does not meet the requirements of a paradigm, new teaching approaches start to emerge. Today, design computing pushes forward a similar transformation on architectural education. Design studio, as the dominant setting for architectural learning, is the center of this transformation. There are numerous researches, experiencing and defining this transformation from various perspectives as “cases”. However as Oxman (2008) highlights, we still need to define a general pedagogical formation for digital design instructors, taking one more step after the popular cognitive explanation of Schön and Wiggins (1992).

In order to argue this; first, we should define a learning model by asking a fundamental question of “how design learning happens?”. The assumption derived from this question would lead us to construct a teaching method, adding the question “when design learning happens?”. Contemporary learning models of Behaviourism, Cognitivism, Constructivism, and Humanism represent the fundamental assumptions on how and when human learning happens. It might be useful to translate these general assumptions into context of architectural design studio, while searching for a new teaching method. In contrast to the Behaviourist model, which defines “passive behaviour” as the cause and the only evaluation criteria of any learning activity, the Constructivist learning model claims that, learning is an active construction of knowledge. In “My Pedagogic Creed”, Dewey (1897) denotes the theme of modern education. He mentions that institutional systems should have a student-centered perspective. When architectural design education is concerned, this manifest means “learning by doing”. Whereas it shouldn’t be misinterpreted as “learning by creating physical artifacts”, which points a behaviourist model in studio learning and evaluation. We believe, behaviourist learning model, focusing on the final artifact instead of the process
itself, does not meet the requirements of contemporary digital design education. Therefore, in order to develop a new educational framework, some of the studio concepts should be re-defined, such as;

• If we admit the reality of digital transformations on architectural design, the general assumption of “learning by doing” would not be enough to answer some of the fundamental questions of contemporary Digital Design Studios. One significant transformation in architectural design is the shift of focus from design objects, to design processes. Then, our first question should be “how design learning happens, without physically creating it?” If we assume the design process itself as a design output, we frequently translate above notion into “learning by designing the design process”. However, this also won’t help us on answering the cognitive learning question “how?”
• The educational method of “student centered studio” is also not enough; and can easily become a “studio centered student” conception. We should re-think about the educational setting of architectural studio, without any presupposition about “when design learning happens?”

Yazar, T., Pakdil, O.; (2009); “Role of Studio Exercises in Digital Design Education: Case Study of the Nine-Square Grid”; Education and Research of Computer Aided Architectural Design In Europe, 27th ECAADE Conference, pp.145-152, İstanbul.