Title

社會取向建築基本設計教學與學習經驗分析:以臺灣大學「初等環境規劃與設計」課程為例

Translated Titles

Teaching Practices and Student Learning in the Fundamentals of Environmental Planning and Design Studio, National Taiwan University

DOI

10.6154/JBP.2017.22.004

Authors

慕思勉(Szumien Mu)

Key Words

社會取向建築 ; 建築設計課 ; 空間劇本 ; 參與式設計 ; 合作式學 ; social architecture ; fundamental architecture design studio ; scenario of space ; participatory design ; collaboration learning

PublicationName

國立台灣大學建築與城鄉研究學報

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

22期(2017 / 05 / 01)

Page #

77 - 100

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

臺灣的建築基本設計教學於1980-1990 年代歷經改革,從過去強調純粹形式元素的教學範型納入真實環境觀察、體驗、紀錄與創作等教學單元,同時,亦有論者倡議建築設計應連結社會,成為環境改造的公共行動,至今日社會設計、合作式設計等亦再次強調環境設計具有的公共性格,重新界定了專業的價值與技術。然而,基礎設計課程中如何導入溝通與合作等技術以及學習效果之討論尚不多見。本文以臺灣大學「初等環境規劃與設計」課程為例,透過課程教學、訪談、學習心得等過程,分析此課程核心理念從人與環境關係的討論為起點,以圖畫與文字作為媒介,經過同學相互討論理解彼此差異,認知建築非僅視覺經驗的客體,而是作為個體覺察世界、產生記憶與依附情感的實質存在。課程另一教學重點為導入建築計畫、使用後評估等作法,學習利用使用者訪談、基地與活動觀察等方法,以「空間劇本」作為導引設計的源頭,經過團隊之合作溝通,決定劇本角色人物與活動場景的優先順序與相互關連,並接續至拼貼、三度模型、圖繪等階段。亦即,整個課程中從不同團隊之組合與設計任務中,將對話、傾聽、衝突化解、決策等溝通與合作技巧納為學習核心。同學對上述過程的體會為設計有機會在相互溝通的行動中,形成具有可共同意會的「我們的方案」。

English Abstract

The social-oriented discourse and practice of architectural design emerged as a critical issue in design academics during the 1990s. Compared to the conventional ideas of design education that emphasize personal- inspired creativity, social design treats design as public action to change the society and physical environment. In this context, communication and cooperation become indispensable professional skills. However, in the basic architectural design class, these skills still were evaluated to be unadaptable to teach. The aim of this study is to investigate the teaching practices and students' learning experiences in the Fundamental Environment Planning and Design course. Group interview with five students and individual interviews with two students who were enrolled in the course in 2013-2014 were conducted in August 2014. The student's learning reports, portfolios and works were also included as analytical materials. The analysis revealed three categories of results. Firstly, the understanding of self and others' space experiences and values are the critical starting point in the class. Through the discussion of drawings and writing in the people and environment units, students identified elements of the physical environment with embedded memories, emotions, and imagination. Secondly, to bring architectural programming and post occupancy evaluation into teaching programs is another core value in this class. The scenario-guided designs based on an understanding of the characters are developed by using interviews, observational skills through direct interaction with the users. The process of scenario writing is also another teaching focus of the collective consensus making that continues to the collage and model making stages as well as makes possible the dialogue between designers and users. Thirdly, through the arrangement of the different scales of team composition, students experienced the skills of dialogue, listening, conflict resolution, and decision making. These various communicational methods can be only learned from the cooperative working process. Based on the discussion above, this study found that there is possibility to bring "design as making common sense together" into the fundamental design class.

Topic Category 工程學 > 土木與建築工程
Reference
  1. 王偉澔、詹品丞(編)(2012)《初環青年:初等環境與建築設計作品集》。未出版。
  2. Cooper Marcus, C.,Sarkissian, W.(1986).Housing as if people mattered: Site design guidelines for medium-density family housing.Berkeley:University of California Press.
  3. Hershberger, R.、呂以寧譯、張文男譯(2001)。建築計畫:與設計前的管理程式。臺北:麥格羅希爾。
  4. Hester, R.、張聖琳譯(1999)。造坊有理:社區設計的夢想與實驗。臺北:遠流。
  5. Lifchez, R.(1974).From inside to outside: A journey to architecture.Journal of Architectural Education,27(1),27-36.
  6. Lynch, K.,Hack, G.(1984).Site planning.Cambridge:The MIT Press.
  7. Mcpeek, K. T.(2009).College Station, Texas,A & M University.
  8. Nicol, D.(ed.),Pilling, S.(ed.)(2000).Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism.New York:Spon Press.
  9. Salama, A.(1995).New trends in architectural education: Designing the design studio.Raleigh, NC:Tailored Texts.
  10. Sanoff, H.(1992).Integrating programming, evaluation and participation in design: A theory Z approach.Brookfield, VT:Avebury.
  11. Schön, D. A.(1987).Educating the reflective practicioner.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
  12. 吳玉成(2000)。「環境藝術」在建築系基本設計訓練裡的可能性及限制:以成大的經驗為例。新世代建築學及方法學術研討會論文集,臺中:
  13. 吳光庭(2012)。期待臺北:臺北設計城市展x臺北設計街區。臺北:臺北市政府。
  14. 夏鑄九(1980)。試論建築教育之低年級設計教學。建築師,4,43-52。
  15. 郭錦津、彭志峰、林昌明(1997)。逢甲建築系的基本設計教育:環境意識與藝術的社區推廣。1997 基本設計研討會論文集,臺中:
  16. 喻肇青(2011)。環境設計入門教學的反思。景觀專刊,1,10-11。
  17. 黃瑞茂、羅文貞(2001)。社區參與公共空間的營造:後竹圍公園的經驗研究。環境與藝術學刊,2,133-150。
  18. 趙重生(1997)。國內大專院校建築系基本設計教學方法之再思量:學生親身體驗式學習之重要性。1997 基本設計研討會論文集,臺中:
  19. 劉可強(1994)。環境品質與社區參與。台北:行政院文化建設委員會。
  20. 羅時瑋(1997)。試論「環境觀察與經營」練習在建築基本設計教學的重要性:以東海大學的嘗試為例。1997 基本設計研討會論文集,臺中:
  21. 羅時瑋(2013)。應機而變的建築教育觀。臺灣建築學會會刊雜誌,10,30-39。
  22. 羅瑞鴦、劉欣蓉(2001)。參與式社區設計:台灣經驗省思。第三屆環太平洋區參與式社區設計研討會:建構多元文化的地方環境,臺北:
Times Cited
  1. 馬永強(2009)。都會捷運系統施工補償政策之逆選擇分析。臺灣大學政治學研究所學位論文。2009。1-136。 
  2. 洪芷如(2007)。台灣地方文化館輔導機制之研究。臺灣師範大學美術學系在職進修碩士班學位論文。2007。1-142。