DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Syllabi for Landscape Architectural Design Courses as Project-Based Classes and Improvement Strategies

프로젝트 기반 수업으로서의 조경설계 교과목 수업계획서 분석과 개선방안

Kim, Ah-Yeon
김아연

  • Received : 2016.01.12
  • Accepted : 2016.02.17
  • Published : 2016.02.29

Abstract

A syllabus can be considered to be a masterplan for good educational results. This study tries to diagnose the current status of landscape architectural design education and suggest improvement strategies for better landscape design courses through the analysis of the syllabi of mid-level landscape design studio classes collected from the four-year undergraduate programs. The findings and suggestions are as follows. First, it is necessary to take advantage of a syllabus as a contract as well as a plan and a learning tool. Second, it is crucial to make more detailed statement from the perspectives of learners. Third, more customized components for design courses should be developed; the syllabus should give the structure of a design class as an integration and synthesis of other courses. Fourth, it is necessary to increase the interrelationship and relevance among the components, especially between course objectives and evaluation criteria, and course activities and references. Fifth, a syllabus needs to function as a communication tool in a flexible manner. Sixth, a syllabus needs to give a comprehensive information about the site and the design project. Finally, instructors need to introduce a set of detailed evaluation rubrics or criteria acceptable to students in order to increase the fairness and transparency of the evaluation.

Keywords

Instruction Design;Landscape Design Education;Studio Pedagogy

References

  1. Buck Institute for Education, http://bie.org/ Accessed in 2015, 10.
  2. Byeon, Jae-Sang, Seong-Ro Ahn, and Sang-Hyun Shin(2015) A methodology to develop a curriculum based on national competency standards - Focused on methodology for gap analysis. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 43(1): 40-53.
  3. Choe, In-soo, Hwa-Sun Lee, Gun-Hee Lee, and Sun-Jin Kim(2012) A detailed analysis of creativity courses provided by prestigious Korean universities. The Journal of Curriculum Studies 30(2): 179-199. https://doi.org/10.15708/kscs.30.2.201206.007
  4. Choi, Sang-Ki, In-Ja Ahn, Younghee Noh and Ju-Sup Kim(2013) A comparative study on curriculum contents and teaching methods based on the syllabi of library and information science in Korea and foreign universities. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society 47(2): 223-245. https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2013.47.2.223
  5. Dee Fink, L.(2003) Creating Significant Learning Experiences. San Francisco; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  6. Gagne, Robert M., Walter W. Wagner, Katharine Golas, and John M. Keller(2005) Principles of Instructional Design. 5th edition. 송상호, 박 인우, 엄우용, 이상수옮김(2007) Seoul: Thomson Learning Korea Limited.
  7. Grunert O'brient, Judith, Barbara J. Millis, and Margaret W. Cohen (2008) The Course Syllabus: A Learning-Centered Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  8. Hong, Youn-Soon(2006) A study on the development of landscape planning and design curriculum for practical practice: Using performance criteria of architectural education accreditation. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 34(1): 81-91.
  9. Jeon, Seong Yeon(1995) University Curriculum and Courses. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  10. Jeong, Eun I(2010) Perceptions by teachers and students of good teaching at college. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Methodology Studies 22(3): 25-44.
  11. Joo, Shin-Ha(2014) Practitioners' perception of landscape education in universities. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 42(3): 13-24.
  12. Jung, Hye Ryoung(2007) An Analysis of Undergraduate Course Syllabus and Development of Models. Ph. D. Dissertation, Yonsei University, Korea.
  13. Kang, Seung Hae and G. Eun-Jun Lee(2013) A study of learners' usage and satisfaction by levels of perception of the course syllabus: In a graduate school of education. Journal of Education Science Studies 44(1): 31-61.
  14. Kaplan, DavidM. and RenardMonika K.(2015) Negotiating your syllabus: Building a collaborative contract. Journal of Management Education 39(3): 400-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562914564788
  15. Kim, Ah-Yeon(2010) Students' perception of landscape design studio education. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 38(2): 9-24.
  16. Kim, Ah-Yeon(2015) Issues of learner-centered studio classes in landscape architectural education. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 43(1): 139-156. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2015.43.1.139
  17. Kim, Ho-Sook and Hyoung-seok B. Kim(2009) Dynamic syllabus composition system considering the priority of educational objectives. Journal of Korea Association of Computer Education 12(2): 13-22.
  18. Korean Council for University Education(1994) Case Study of Good Syllabus. Research no. 94-1-13.
  19. Korean Educational Psychology Association(2000) Terminology of Educational Psychology. Seoul: Hakjisa.
  20. Lackney, Jeffrey A.(1999) A history of the studio-based learning model. retrieved from http://edi.msstate.edu/work/pdf/history_studio_ based_learning.pdf in 2013, 10.
  21. Lee, Sang-Hun(2006) A study on origins of architectural design education and its transformation with focus on the development of design studio in a university setting. Review of Architecture & Building Sciences 22(3): 145-156.
  22. Lee, Seong-Ho(1987) The Purposes, Contents, and Application of a Syllabus. Theories and Practices of University Syllabus Design, Korean Council for University Education. Report no. 87-1-31.
  23. Lee, Seong-Ho(2004) Curriculum Development and Evaluation. Seoul: Yangseowon.
  24. Lee, Wha Kuk(1989) Instruction design and syllabus for universities, Korean Council for University Education Workshop Proceedings. Report no. 89-6-6.
  25. Lee, Yongjin and Innwoo Park(2015) A concept-mapping approach to identify the education experts' perception of 'good syllabi'. Journal of Korean Association for Educational Methodology 27(1): 1-20.
  26. Matjka, K., and L. B. Kurke(1994) Designing a great syllabus. College Teaching 42(3): 115-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1994.9926838
  27. Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl(2000) Behind the mask: A psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education 53(4): 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1162/104648800564608
  28. Online Etymology Dictionary. http://www.etymonline.com/ Accessed in 2015, 12.
  29. Parkes, Jay and Mary B. Harris(2002) The purpose of a syllabus. College Teaching 50(2): 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595875
  30. Quinlan, Ann, NancyMarshall and Linda Corkery(2007) Revealing Student Perceptions of Excellence in Student Design Projects. ConnectED 2007 International Conference on Design Education.
  31. Schon, Donald(1985) The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potentials, London: RIBA Publications Limited.
  32. Seo, Kyoung-Hye(2004) The perspectives and conceptions about good instructional practice: An interview study of teachers and students. The Journal of Curriculum Studies 22(4): 165-187.
  33. Tasker, Tammy(2011) Designing Landscape and Creating Selves: Learning in Design Studios. Ph.D Dissertation. University of Washington, College of Education.
  34. Thompson, B.(2007) The syllabus as a communication document: Constructing and preventing the syllabus. Communication Education 56(1): 54-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520601011575
  35. Till, Jeremy(2005) Lost judgement in E. Harder(Ed.), EAAE Prize 2003-2005 Writings in Architectural Education. (1st edition) Copenhagen: EAAE, 164-181.
  36. Ward, A.(1990) Ideology, culture and the design studio. Design Studies 11(1): 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(90)90010-A
  37. Yun, Hae-Geun and Min-Won Seo(1994) The selection and analysis of good syllabi, Korean Council for University Education. Report No. 94-1-132.

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 서울시립대학교