Technique and Tectonic Concepts as Theoretical Tools in Object and Space Production: An Experimental Approach to Building Technologies I and II Courses

Abstract

By focusing on technical content, this study presents ‘two experimental building technologies courses’ connecting the conceptual and practical aspects of architectural object production. Built on the fundamental ‘concept of making’, these courses encourage students to explore their creative abilities by uniting material, form, and purpose. In the Building Technologies I course, exploration starts with the concept of ‘technique’, which involves the practical and theoretical knowledge necessary to shape architectural objects. This technique allows the production of architectural objects that encapsulate spaces carrying action and time, making a mere explanation of space creation insufficient. Thus, in the Building Technologies II course, the focus shifts to the ‘tectonic’ concept, which involves creating coherent spatial entities within a single structural system. The two courses aim to equip students with the ability to develop their unique knowledge and methods for construction before advancing to more theorised Building Technologies courses. Students are encouraged to engage with materials to uncover their potential, experiment with forms to achieve design goals, and personalise construction processes. This proposal advocates for foundational construction courses built on intuitive knowledge to replace traditional rational knowledge courses. Our study presents the methodologies and outputs of the proposed Building Technologies courses as a basis for ongoing construction courses.

1. Introduction

In architectural education, the content of construction courses is predominantly based on theoretical and rational knowledge. A scientific study (These data were obtained from the research conducted with the permission of TOBB ETÜ, Human Research Evaluation Board, with the application numbered 2023-08, dated 13 March 2023, and numbered E-27393295-100-38618. As of 2023, there are 134 architecture departments in Turkey. The 40 universities where the research was conducted include the state and foundation universities in the top 20 in the OSYM (Turkish Centre for Assessment, Selection and Placement) 2023 ranking and the academicians who teach undergraduate Building Technologies courses in these universities) conducted in 2023, which evaluated the objectives, content, methods, and outcomes of Building Technologies (‘The term ‘Building Technologies’ courses refers to the general name for the building courses offered in the Department of Architecture at TOBB ETÜ. While the course codes, instructors, and content may vary each semester, the name ‘Building Technologies’ serves as the English translation of these courses. Similarly, in architecture programmes across Turkey, courses with titles such as ‘Construction’, ‘Construction Knowledge’, or ‘Building Technologies’ are commonly offered, and their content is generally consistent. These courses typically cover essential construction and structural knowledge topics, including materials, construction techniques, environmental considerations, sustainability, and statics. In this context, the ‘Building Technologies’ courses at TOBB ETU reflect the broader curriculum in architectural education throughout Turkey.) [BT] courses in Turkey, corroborated this observation. The research exposed long-recognised yet unsystematised issues within construction education and provided quantitative evidence to support the rationale behind the experimental BT courses, which have been a focus of this study since their introduction in 2012. The perspectives of course instructors regarding the current BT courses were collected using a Likert scale, and these data have substantiated the justification for the design of the experimental courses and highlighted their potential benefits.

The findings of the study indicate that:

Most educators teaching BT courses in Turkey stated that students are given rational knowledge in these courses (Figure 1).

A significant majority (82.5%) agree that BT courses focus on practical knowledge, with only 5% disagreeing and 12.5% remaining neutral.

Instructors believe transmitting this rational knowledge in BT courses does not distract students from engaging with intuitive and experimental approaches (Figure 2).

Most instructors (62.5%) believe BT courses do not inhibit intuitive and experimental approaches, with 22.5% remaining neutral—only 15% express concern, indicating limited apprehension about the potential restriction of these methods.

Instructors define the primary purpose of BT courses as providing rational information about construction, materials, and structural systems to students (Figure 3).

These findings indicate that introductory BT courses primarily focus on imparting fundamental rational knowledge and material skills, with 60 instructors emphasising these goals. Theoretical and conceptual aspects and the use of rational knowledge in design are less prioritised.

Instructors state that they do not perceive any issues with BT courses focused on imparting rational knowledge (Figure 4).

Instructors state that the teaching methods in BT courses are limited to lectures, assignments, and term projects (Figure 5).

These findings indicate that the objectives of construction courses in architectural education in Turkey are primarily centred on imparting rational knowledge to students. In this study, ‘rational knowledge’ refers to a systematic understanding of construction principles based on established architectural norms, scientific methods, logical reasoning, and precise, experienced knowledge. It emphasises universal rules and objective analysis, focusing on technical aspects like material properties, structural integrity, and standardised methods. It is noteworthy that, despite instructors identifying the primary goal of BT courses as the transmission of rational knowledge and structuring their course content accordingly, they do not perceive this emphasis as hindering intuitive and experimental approaches. With the process, construction knowledge courses in Turkey have increasingly relied on standardised rational knowledge. This reliance has resulted in a significant scarcity of courses that incorporate experimental content and methods, particularly those addressing concepts such as materials, construction, and making processes. Also, the current BT courses, while not seen as problematic by most educators, are primarily focused on transmitting rational knowledge. This study identifies a significant gap in these courses: the insufficient emphasis on intuitive and experimental learning. This gap suggests a need for a new approach that integrates these aspects more effectively into the curriculum to better prepare students for the complexities of architectural practice. Because the teaching methods of BT courses in almost all architecture departments are based on course content lectures, conceptual lectures, research assignments, drawing assignments, and studio critiques, there are very few experimental studies (see Figure 5). Additionally, the content and methodologies across Turkey exhibit considerable uniformity. In this context, it seems unlikely that experimental course content and methods could emerge in an educational environment dominated by traditional teaching methods prioritising theoretical and non-experimental rational knowledge.

Furthermore:

Instructors believe that students cannot apply the rational knowledge gained in building course effectively in architectural design studios (Figure 6).

These findings reveal mixed opinions on whether students apply knowledge from BT courses in design studios. However, with 35% neutral, 22.5% disagreeing, and 10% strongly disagreeing, there is notable scepticism about the practical use of BT courses knowledge in design studios. These findings suggest that BT course skills are ineffective in this context.

These findings suggest that construction courses’ teaching methods and outcomes require reassessment. While most instructors are generally satisfied with the goals, content, and methods of these courses, it is evident that they do not sufficiently enable students to develop intuitive and experimental approaches, nor do they provide the tools necessary for exploring the conceptual and practical aspects of construction—an issue of significant concern. One primary reason is the lack of opportunities for students to engage directly with materials and discover construction techniques through hands-on experimentation. Furthermore, the insufficient application of knowledge acquired in BT courses within architectural design courses, coupled with the inevitable inclination of students to understand and design architectural objects in a purely rational manner, highlights two additional problem areas. These issues can be attributed to the current educational system’s design, which lacks construction courses that prioritise conceptual thinking. Including non-standard, experimental, conceptual, and practical tools in the content and methods of construction knowledge courses within architectural education could foster meaningful differentiation. Consequently, it is imperative to redesign the existing BT courses to allow students to grasp the relationship between theory and practice and to comprehend the conceptual and practical unity of architectural objects. This would enable students to transform rational knowledge of construction into tools for architectural creativity and the development of unique structural content, equipping them with intellectual and practical resources to differentiate their designs.

This study posits that innovative BT courses centred on creative and experimental approaches have the potential to address the structural issues previously discussed in architectural education. Unlike traditional BT course content and methods, which rely on theoretical and rational knowledge, these courses should be built upon conceptual and practical experimental methods that prioritise design. This approach would enable the simultaneous generation of knowledge about both the designed object and its construction process. By fostering such an educational environment, educators could help students enhance their intuitive skills in construction, engage more deeply with materials and construction processes, and develop a more conscious understanding of the relationship between materials and construction techniques, both during their education and in their professional careers. In this way, students would become part of a creative and practical educational model that integrates construction and design processes, moving beyond reliance on purely theoretical and rational knowledge. Furthermore, such construction courses would provide a foundation for developing alternative approaches in architectural education, offering innovative content and methods that diverge from traditional course structures, thereby creating a novel and progressive platform for learning.

In this context, the study aimed to establish foundational BT courses that prioritise design and conceptual thinking and propose innovative strategies for acquiring and building knowledge by fostering creative learning environments. It strives to extend beyond technical knowledge in construction courses by equipping students with conceptual and practical tools applicable to educational and professional design practices. The scope of this study encompasses undergraduate BT courses taught at the first-year level of architectural education. This study is based on the hypothesis that construction knowledge can be effectively acquired through experimentalist BT courses. Furthermore, it posits that construction content can be treated holistically without being divided into separate theoretical and practical domains, and it challenges the integration of rational knowledge with ongoing construction education through design genes that reflect specialised personal construction techniques based on intuitive knowledge. Thus, BT courses can be distinguished from traditional rational knowledge and modern educational models, facilitating building knowledge grounded in experience, intuition, and theoretical concepts.

This study employed a mixed-methods approach integrating qualitative research and experimental techniques to examine and implement concepts in BT courses. The qualitative aspect encompasses an in-depth literature review to elucidate the theoretical foundations of BT courses, explicitly focusing on the concept of making (Sönmez and Batı, 2019) [1]. This concept bridges the spectrum from thinking to making and investigates the integration of techniques and tectonics in BT I and II courses. The experimental component enabled the development and execution of practical strategies for improving course outcomes, involving systematic studies of courses (Merriam, 2023) [2], data collection on functionality, and performance analyses (Chmiliar, 2010) [3]. Through systematic analysis, this study aimed to uncover the multidimensional meanings and areas of growth in the conceptual and practical content of the courses.

Consequently, the contents and methodologies of the BT I and II courses were evaluated in terms of their innovative contributions to the field of building technologies courses education. By analysing and evaluating different studies, this approach facilitates a nuanced understanding of courses’ roles in architectural education, how they diverge from existing practices and theories, and their potential and limitations. This study discusses the impact of these specially designed courses in architectural education. Finally, we propose an undergraduate BT course curriculum that integrates theory and practice, generates construction knowledge through experimental course methodologies, and leverages intuitive insights.

Background

The transformation of construction knowledge in Turkish architecture from traditional to modern is rooted in the modernisation efforts during the Ottoman period. This transformation was marked by the establishment of the Hassa Architects’ Guild, part of the military education system, which imparted technical and geometric knowledge, and the adoption of the Beaux-Arts educational system by the School of Fine Arts [Sanayi-i Nefise Mektebi] (Diri and Mayuk, 2019; Tökmenci, 2004) [4,5]. The modernisation process continued during the Republican period, drawing on educational methodologies from European architectural schools and integrating concepts such as functionalism and rationalism into the curriculum (Gürdallı and Yücel 2006) [6]. The Bauhaus Model significantly influenced architectural education in Turkey during this period (Lökçe 2002) [7]. In the 1930s, Ernst Egli restructured Turkey’s architectural education, aligning it with the educational philosophy of Central Europe’s Technische Hochschule (Hızlı and Aysel 2017) [8]. This philosophy emphasises technical knowledge, aesthetics, and rational design (Kopuz 2018) [9] Egli’s approach, which is based on scientifically and objectively obtained knowledge (Ş. Ö. Gür 2000) [10], still underpins the educational systems of many architectural schools in Turkey, and it remains mainly in use today. Despite advancements in teaching structural thinking, material knowledge, and construction techniques, relying primarily on theoretical texts for learning technical details and material potential is often viewed as a shortcoming of many Turkish architectural schools. Given the rapidly changing social and technological conditions, there is a pressing need to redesign educational systems (Guattares 2020) [11], particularly when updating the content and methods related to construction knowledge.

Innovative Alternative Approaches to Modern Building Technologies Courses: Modern education predominantly transfers construction knowledge through lectures and listening/drawing (Gore 2004) [12]. However, architectural education demands more interactive and dynamic learning environments and more comprehensive and effective teaching methods for aspiring architects (Mayuk and Çoşkun 2020) [13]. Furthermore, the changing landscape necessitates the development of appropriate learning methodologies and models that effectively bridge the gap between the theoretical construction knowledge imparted by modern education and practical construction skills (Erbil 2008) [14]. Since the 1990s, various methods have been developed to establish dynamic learning environments and strengthen the links between theory and practice. During this period, modern construction courses’ theoretical and methodological limitations were critically examined, and efforts were made to address gaps in the transfer and comprehension of building knowledge (Kraus 2017) [15]. These new methods allowed students to engage with structural knowledge through practical applications and a theoretical context.

The Yale School of Architecture’s construction studio provides opportunities to understand the impact of design decisions on the construction process and develop structural knowledge through critical evaluation (Passarelli and J. Mouton 2021) [16]. Similarly, Virginia Tech College’s Washington-Alexandria Architecture Centre emphasises the development of students’ practical skills and creativity (Folić 2016) [17]. Rural Studio engages students in a community-oriented approach, enhancing their understanding of design and construction (Mockbee 2001) [18] and encouraging them to consider the social, political, and environmental impacts of their projects (Freear 2023) [19]. The Ghost Architecture Laboratory helps students develop a sense of place, craft, and social awareness and rethink structural production with real-world knowledge of the environment, materials, and construction methods (Zawistowski and Zawistowski 2017) [20]. The Making + Meaning programme at the Southern California Institute of Architecture actively involves students in the design process and production of their designs in collaboration with professionals (Folić 2016) [17]. Herkes İçin Mimarlık Derneği (Architecture for All) provides students in Turkey with the opportunity to find solutions to social problems through architecture (Architecture for All Association 2024) [21]. Finally, the Middle East Technical University Summer School allows students to benefit from the artisans’ knowledge by working on real projects on a 1:1 scale (Gür and Yüncü 2012) [22].

These approaches strengthen the link between academia and practice, thereby providing a deeper understanding of the relationship between architectural design and its practical applications (Erdman and Weddle 2002) [23]. Additionally, they offer insights into the profession’s technical and social facets (Nicholas and Oak 2020) [24] and promote teamwork by involving students directly in the construction process. This is opposed to the isolated work typically seen in ongoing design studio education (Carpenter and Hoffman 1997) [25]. Moreover, these approaches provide alternative cognitive and perceptual learning methods (Anzai and Simon 1979) [26] and emphasise experiential learning (Dewey 1966) [27], thereby enhancing skills in material handling, problem-solving, and collective production (Akdeniz 2023) [28]. It can be argued that there is a connection between students making things with their hands and the growth of intellectual cognition (Pallasmaa 2017) [29]. In addition, the paedagogy of hands-on and learning by doing is based on a constructivist approach that focuses on how the student actively learns from experiences (Niiranen 2019) [30]. Consequently, students participate actively in the design and production processes (Foote 2012) [31].

These educational models offer limited solutions for transmitting and understanding structural knowledge because they focus primarily on on-site design construction. In addition, these approaches do not facilitate the acquisition of new forms of knowledge beyond craft skills, such as understanding the potential of materials. The design-build method, in which students’ initiative is restricted and they cannot fully grasp the material’s potential, is characterised by a predetermined construction sequence that does not adequately support individual creativity and expression. By contrast, the construction knowledge transfer method proposed in this study adopts a more modern and innovative approach, which allows students to acquire construction knowledge and technical content through experimentation with materials, purposes, and forms. This approach integrates concepts, practical applications, and course methods to define a new field at the junction of construction and design specifically tailored for introductory construction courses. The content, methods, and production of the construction courses organised within this framework are presented in the following section.

2. Materials—Methods and Results

The experimental method is characterised by the simultaneous progression of design and construction, and it actively encourages students to experiment, take initiative, and constantly interpret and transform the process throughout the course (Eco 2000) [32]. The proposed method has two main theoretical and practical differences from modern construction courses and alternative design-building methods in learning and knowledge acquisition. The first lies in the theoretical content created in construction, technique, and tectonics. The second difference is in the experimental practical productions [Section 3.1 and Section 3.2] resulting from this theoretical content.

The Concept of Making as the Theoretical Focus of BT Courses

BT I and II courses are grounded in making a comprehensive framework synthesising both cognitive and physical aspects of construction (Sönmez and Batı 2019) [1]. This concept is pivotal for understanding how interactions between humans and the material world influence the creation of objects, and it also highlights the roles of environmental and material engagements. The making process is divided into three essential stages: (1) knowledge acquisition, mediated through sensory perception and cognitive understanding; (2) signification, which involves the mental design of objects; and (3) transformation, in which these designs are actualised in the physical world (Sönmez and Batı 2019) [1]. In addition, the idea of creating a form of creation can be traced back to antiquity. Plato’s discussions in The Republic on the process of bringing into existence something that does not exist and his outline of five elements necessary to acquire knowledge of any object in ‘The Seventh Letter’—definition, name, appearance, knowledge itself, and the object itself—are pivotal references for understanding the concept of making in this study (Platon 2010) [33]. Furthermore, Plato’s reinterpretation of poiesis refers to the act of creating something that did not exist before, positioning every creator as a ‘poietes’ (maker) and producer (Platon 2017) [34]. This approach leads to the formation of the object owing to the concept of making and the interaction between the creator and the artefact. Aristotle analysed the interactions between humans, necessities, and the environment through empirical approaches. He elaborated a constructive–creative mode of formation with knowledge and management (shaping) of the material (Aristoteles 2023) [35]. Furthermore, he stated that understanding the environment and its requirements enables one to comprehend and shape materials. His explanation of the existence of things through four causal principles—matter, form, purpose, and potential–actual states (Falcon 2006) [36]—shed light on how the creative mind interacts with nature, focusing on the material and rational dimensions of existence (Aristoteles 2023) [35].

The first of Aristotle’s four causal principles is the creative intellect (causa efficiens), which recognises the need for a thing and brings it into existence. The second is the necessity of the thing, the need it fulfils, and its purpose (causa finalis). The third principle is material (causa materialis), and it not only makes things possible but also brings them into existence, accepts changes, and embodies various qualities. The fourth principle is form (causa formalis), which arises from the nature or potential of a material and serves to fulfil its purpose. Collectively, these principles philosophically define ‘what the thing comes to be’ related to its purpose. The definition of purpose involves understanding the substance ‘which the thing comes from’ and its inherent qualities. The Creator imagines ‘how the material and its form will change’ to fulfil its purpose. ‘Where the change comes from’ is the creative mind, which can be described as a human initiative to comprehend all the data, possibilities, and interrelationships within the environment and to exert a will that acts upon the environment for its own sake. The creative mind can distinguish itself from what is naturally present (Hennig 2009) [37].

The concept of making is inherently knowledge-intensive and is shaped by our experiences and the actions of the creative mind, which brings design into being. This process requires a deep knowledge of making, which is closely related to the concept of techne. Techne, as defined by Aristotle, is a blend of art and technical skills that fosters the productivity of the creative mind (Vitruvius, 2017) [38]. For Aristotle, the arts and crafts are fundamentally encompassed by techne (Kart 2015) [39]. This term refers not only to the knowledge of objects and their production but also to a broader category of creativity (Sönmez and Batı 2019) [1].

Historically, techne has been a broad concept in philosophy, encompassing all arts and crafts. It is a universal framework for man-made artefacts that respond to natural creations. Activities within a techne follow a distinct path—they utilise specific knowledge to achieve a purpose, satisfy needs, and produce beneficial functional outcomes, epitomising rational production (Artun 2023) [40]. This aligns with Foucault’s definition of technology as a practical rationality directed by conscious purpose (Foucault 1984) [41]. Moreover, techne involves technical skills and their application, embodying the capacity of the creative mind to realise designs (Ma 2018) [42].

Furthermore, Heidegger posits that techne is a mode of knowing through which things are revealed (Heidegger 2007) [43]. Using technology, humanity reveals things and embodies existence in the world through the things it reveals (Rizzuto 2010) [44]. In this philosophical context, techne transcends the mere knowledge of doing and producing; it is also a pursuit of meaning and existence within human interactions with the environment (Weber 1989) [45]. Thus, the foundational concept of making is intrinsically linked to techne, representing not only the knowledge of how to make but also encompassing the broader meanings and purposes of creation.

Defining the concept of making through the ideas of ancient philosophers transcends specific historical, local, and cultural contexts, offering a wide-ranging perspective and solid theoretical foundation for discussion. Thus, Aristotle’s four principles of causality serve as timeless conceptual tools within material, form, and purpose (Kartal and Kartal 2020) [46]. These principles facilitate a comprehensive understanding of construction and design’s aesthetic, functional, and technical dimensions. Consequently, they enable the integration of design and production within the methodology of BT I and II courses, allowing these aspects to be addressed simultaneously.

3. Conceptual Foundations and Differences of the First Stage of the BT I Course and the Second Stage of the BT II Course in the Context of the Concept of Making

Making is a building method where thinking and doing are intertwined. Students learn to recognise their capabilities, understand material requirements, identify design needs, and produce the final work. The essence of making lies in conceiving a design and realising it as a physical object—a process that emphasises individual creativity and results in tangible structures. This study considers the building as a physical product and teaching tool, focusing on the process. With this approach, the course content integrates a system in which creative actions, object-making, and technical principles work together. The system connects the concepts of technique and tectonics with making in the BT I and II courses. Techniques and tectonics impart knowledge for transforming ideas into tangible structures, integrating thought and action.

Consequently, the course content encourages mental and practical actions over predetermined methods. Students engage in structural experimentation by using materials and forms, fostering the development of new forms and innovative techniques. The BT I and II courses, centred on the concepts of technique and tectonics, challenge students to explore the potential of materials and the interplay between purpose, material, and form in various contexts. These courses require deep exploration of the environment, concepts, and individual creativity in the design and making. Whereas the BT I course focuses on giving form to materials, the BT II course concentrates on producing architectural objects and spaces, enhancing architectural thinking and production skills in both courses. The variations in the design and production processes of these courses are listed in

Table 1. Theory–practice content of BT I and II courses in the context of making.

The Concept of Making
Building Technologies I Course			Building Technologies II Course
Technique			Tectonics
Theory	Practice		Theory	Practice
Consciousness, knowledge, imagination (Construction of thought)	Materials	Methods	Context	Materials	Technique and Technology
Purpose, requirements (Construction of reality)	Sensed things	Overlapping, attaching side by side, fitting, interweaving, knitting, bending, piling up, reducing	Action	Grasped things	Framing
			Ground/Mound
Possibilities, choices, personalisation			Roof
Transformations, customisations			Enclosure
Size
Perception
Action and inaction
Form
Production of object			Production of space

.

The following sections explain how content related to making is covered within the concepts of technique and tectonics in BT I and II courses.

3.1. The First Stage of the Building Technologies Courses

The first-stage course on Building Technologies is titled Building Technologies I. This is a mandatory 12-week course that provides three credits and includes 5 h of lectures per week. It has been delivered annually since 2012 during the first semester of the first year. Although not directly related to architectural design, the course focuses on techniques and explores the basic human tendencies to make artefacts, and the processes involved in creating them. Discussions within the course were reinforced through various assignments and workshops to enable students to grasp the concept of making from its theoretical and practical dimensions.

3.1.1. Building Technologies I Course: Technique as a Concept of Making Objects

The concept of doing encompasses the creation of objects and the human understanding of this action. Based on the principle of causality, Aristotle’s ideas associate the tendencies of making with materials, form, and purpose. The knowledge necessary for creating an object, known as ‘techne,’ is defined as the art or craft of making something designed by humans based on correct reasoning (Soussloff 2014) [47]. In modern times, this knowledge is referred to as ‘technique’. Technique encompasses the methods of realising what is designed, practical knowledge that enables the manifestation of form in material, and the ability to transform the material into a meaningful object. Heidegger offered two definitions of technique: a means to an end and an expression of human action (Heidegger 2015) [48]. In this context, technique refers to the ability of humans to provide and use the necessary means to achieve an end. Through technology, humans acquire tangible knowledge to realise purposeful forms of materials and the ability to transform materials into valuable artefacts. Technique is also associated with revealing entities, indicating that technique and creation are intertwined (Heidegger 2015) [48]. However, in the production of artefacts, technique not only dictates the means and production (in line with ‘techne’ as a way of knowing that unlocks things) but also determines the artefact’s place in the world of values (Hartoonian 1994) [49]. Consequently, the technique embodies both knowledge and the expression of existential content, prompting an examination of why an object exists or should exist and its underlying meaning.

The concept of the technique can be discussed in the context of the interaction between the designer and material in the practical field. As an architectural act, manipulating materials indicates both knowledge and an architect’s mastery in understanding the environment. Adolf Loos emphasised that every material has a unique language and intrinsic nature, which is universally recognised, advocating that designers should comprehend this language and craft a new one suitable for the material, noting that no material can transcend its formative possibilities (Loos 2015) [50]. Similarly, Kahn used the example of a brick to illustrate the importance of knowing a material’s properties, respecting it, and understanding its language (Kahn and Wurman 1986) [51]. Zumthor further argues that architects should uncover the poetic qualities of materials (Zumthor 2006) [52]. These ideas extend the technique to discovering the knowledge produced by material and the methods of concretising that knowledge. In this framework, the primary motivation for the BT I course is to discover materials and explore the possibilities of taking forms. The aim (design problem) of the Building I course is to discover the material and the method of working with it. This discovery is realised by exploring the material–purpose–form relationships and simple model-making.

3.1.2. Methodology of Building Technologies I Course: Practices for Technique

The BT I course allows students to explore their making tendencies, develop creative solutions, and explore their creativity. Students are encouraged to develop techniques that enable the integration of purpose, material, and form in the design and creation process. Throughout the course, students are encouraged to put their designs into practice through three main activities, as detailed in

Table 2. Building Technologies I course semester chapters and contents.

Building Technologies, I Course 12 Week Syllabus
	Weeks	Design Problem	Content	Practice
Stage 1	1–4	Objective ✓ Form X Material X	Discovery of sub-concepts of the object (such as movement, sound, smell, size, size, texture, colour, hardness)	Lebineria Bird-2022, XQ-6 Creature-2021, Manduri Beetle-2020, Patunia Flower-2019, 23rd Tree-2018, Vooo Game Character-2017, Pereia Meatball-2016, Lindur Spider II-2015, Gundela Porridge-2014, A Creature-2013, Your Own Circle-2012
Stage 2	5–8	Objective ✓ Form X Material X	Discussion of making methods (such as overlapping, folding, intertwining, bending, piling, reducing, knitting)	Your head and neck in 1/1 scale-2022, Torso and upper part of your own body-2021, Your own body in ½ scale-2020, Wrist, elbow, and shoulder-2019, Wearable arm-2018, Your arm-2017, a Trap for the creature-2016, a Shelter for the creature-2015, a Shelter for the Lindur spider-2014, Your head-2013, a Body-2012
Stage 3	9–12	Objective ✓ Form ✓ Material X	Development and customisation of making methods concerning the material	Design of the Other-2022, 1/1 a Peacock- 2021, 1/1 Your own body-2020, Second skin-2019, 1/1 a Grasshopper or Flamingo-2018, 50/1 a Centipede-2017, 1/3 a Giraffe-2016, ½ an Elephant-2015, 1/1 Your own body-2014, Learn from nature and make yourself a shelter-2013, Make the shelter of the body you design-2012

.

During the first stage of the first project, students are presented with a design problem whose purpose is unclear and whose form and object properties are not defined (Table 2). During this process, students explore the sensory properties of objects and concepts associated with creativity, such as noesis and poiesis. The first four weeks covered a process focused on conscious production and object creation. The initial work encourages thinking about and creating objects through unknown concepts. Concepts such as the Lindur Spider and Gundela Porridge focus on producing something without prior knowledge or imagination, which initiates a fundamental discussion on the relationship between thought and production. The study themes indirectly present requirements regarding purpose and content so that students are encouraged to develop creative processes towards the unknown. Terms such as Lebineria, Manduri, Gundela, Patunya, Lindur, Vooo, and Pereia, which are made-up design problems, are deliberately introduced to stimulate students’ creative thinking. These concepts require students to redefine objects such as birds, creatures, trees, or mashes. Discussion of the sensory properties that characterise the objects in a work enables the material and form of the design to take on meaning through properties such as movement, sound, smell, size, shape, texture, colour, and hardness. Ultimately, the solution to made-up design problems is realised through the designer, giving meaning to the material chosen by the designer and through the purposeful interaction between content and result. Through this process, students can redefine objects and generate appropriate solutions. While exploring different materials, they focused on the process of form production. They transformed the chosen material into a form through processing, which ensured that the objects produced through creative thinking were products of intellectual and practical experimentation (see

Table 3. Building Technologies I course, examples from Stage 1.

Lebineria Bird, 2022		S-1		S-21		S-31
XQ-6 Ceature, 2021		S-4		S-5		S-6
Manduri Beetle, 2020		S-7		S-8		S-9
Patunya Flower, 2019		S-10		S-11		S-12
23. Tree, 2018		S-13		S-14		S-15

).

The second stage centres on a design problem with a clear purpose but uncertain form and material (Table 2). This stage allows students to explore methods for selecting the appropriate material for a given purpose and transforming it into form (For all concepts, see Table 2, line 2). The interaction between material and form is emphasised, and students are encouraged to develop their skills in working and shaping the material and discussing fabrication methods. This activity shows students the importance of the material–form relationships in solving design problems and discusses methods for creating them. In the second activity, students experience a variety of methods as they explore the practice of turning materials into form. These methods include stacking, juxtaposition, and bending, and their relationships with the material and design details are discussed in depth. The process emphasises the methods of transformation into building materials and exploring the creative identities of designers, encouraging the diversity of materials, methods, and personal approaches (see

Table 4. Examples from the second stage of the Building Technologies I course.

Your head and neck, 2022		S-16		S-17		S-18
Your own body 2021		S-19		S-20		S-21
½ Your own body 2020		S-22		S-7		S-8
Torso and upper part of your own body 2019		S-11		S-23		S-12
Wearable arm 2018		S-25		S-26		S-27

).

The third stage focuses on producing a known form and on personalising manufacturing methods and exploring object-specific technical possibilities. The students developed the techniques discovered in the second phase and clarified their methods of making. Techniques such as overlapping, nesting, stacking, and folding are used to personalise the dimensions of the material and construction method. Subconcepts such as movement, balance, combination, and harmony guide technical development. The aim is to produce creative and original solutions using materials and techniques (see

Table 5. Examples from the third stage of the Building Technologies I Course.

Design of the Other, 2022		S-16		S-17		S-18
Peacock, 2021		S-37, S-38		S-28		S-21
Your own body, 2020		S-29		S-8		S-30
Second Skin, 2019		S-12		S-31- S-32		S-11
Flamingo 2018		S-33, S-14		S-35		S-14, S-26

).

Each stage focuses on the material, form, and technique, developing specialised techniques and fundamental structural expressions called design genes. Design genes contain constructive design knowledge and form the basis of structural integrity (Bustos 2019) [53]. Information is presented regarding the design genes and their structural integrity and expression in transforming and shaping the material (

Table 6. Design genes and structural integrity.

	Material		Form	Object
S-1, S-3- 2022	Material	Wooden popsicle sticks
	Secondary material	Filament
	Method	Knitting, punching, lacing
S-36, S-37- 2021	Material	1 × 1 cm wooden lath
	Secondary material	Flexible wire
	Method	Overlapping—binding
S-30- 2020	Material	Metal fly wire
	Secondary material	Metal wire
	Method	Knitting, wrapping
S-31, S-32 - 2019	Material	04 cm diameter, plastic pipette
	Secondary material	Wooden stick skewer
	Method	Nesting
S-13- 2018	Material	10 mm x 10 mm Wooden Lath
	Secondary material	Wire
	Method	Binding, placing side by side

).

Students integrate the conceptual and structural elements of design problems by combining their purposes, forms, and materials. The design genes discovered by the students at the end of BT I were transferred to BT II to create spatial integrity.

3.2. The Second Stage of Building Technologies Courses

The second-stage course on Building Technologies is titled Building Technologies II. It is a mandatory 12-week course with three credits and 5 h of lectures per week. It has been offered since 2012 in the second semester of the first year. The course primarily focuses on tectonics, which is directly related to architecture. It explores the integrity and semantic richness of spaces using personal construction techniques. Building II extends beyond mere techniques to foster a spatial understanding that enriches the meaning and interpretation of space through concepts such as place, time, and action. This gives students a comprehensive theoretical and practical understanding of creation through a spatial design lens. The central theme of the course is tectonics.

3.2.1. Building Technologies II Course: Tectonics as a Concept of Architectural Object Production

Tectonics, as a combination of aesthetics (poesis) and the knowledge of making (techne), defines an architectural object’s creation process. It also represents the evolution of the structural elements that define space, moving beyond the distinction between inside and outside to embrace a holistic construction. This construction integrates the concept of actions, encompasses affects as described by the emotional responses elicited by the properties of physical objects (Hürol 2022) [54], and integrates temporal dimensions that delineate spatial characteristics (Mallgrave 2011) [55].

Holistic construction features structural design elements produced using different materials, techniques, and justifications. For example, floors are typically constructed from durable materials, such as stone, delineating the boundaries of space with the earth. Stonemasons’ skills and methods are crucial for transforming stones into flooring. Similarly, roofs, often made of wood, define the spatial limits of the sky, and carpenters apply their methods to transform wood into roofing. Walls made from diverse materials mark the boundaries of the space with the surrounding environment and are shaped by weavers or brick layers. During the production of these structural elements, craftspeople transform materials into architectural objects, highlighting the importance of technical knowledge. This knowledge encompasses a set of skills and methods essential for converting raw materials, such as stone into floors, wood into roofs, and yarn into walls. Technology and its applications fundamentally shape the ontological and epistemological structures of spaces. In this context, tectonics articulates a holistic understanding of structure and design that combines technical material and spatial integrity. The theoretical content that defines this understanding is as follows:

Tectonic as a poiesis: The word tectonic comes from the Greek term tekton, meaning ‘carpenter’ or ‘builder.’ It was accepted as a poet/tekton in Sappho, and in Homer, it was understood to have connotations of the art of construction (Frampton 2001) [56]. Hence, the meaning of tekton, rather than the production of physical and evident works, includes the meaning of the creation process, which refers to the creation of artistic works (Liu and Lim 2006) [57]. This refers to the more poetic meanings of the concept of making, such as immaterial architecture (Hill 2006) [58] or immaterial tectonic (Batı and Sönmez 2018) [59] that are not directly related to the material. Therefore, regarding semantics, tectonics refers to the poiesis of its origin.

Poiesis of space: Creating architectural tectonics involves bringing space into existence. Putting space at the centre of architectural creations and bringing a new look at modern architecture, Semper treats the production of the architectural object with a symbolic and technical dilemma by implying the space and other means of setting up the space. Later, Frampton interprets the symbolic and technical as the representational and ontological aspect of tectonic forms: ‘Semper draws between the ontological nature of the earthwork, frame, and roof and the more representational, symbolic nature of the hearth’ (Frampton 2001, 16) [56]. Here, it can be inferred that in tectonic expressions representing space (hearth), the technique’s structural elements (floor, wall, and roof) are generated. In other words, the means of tectonic expression are the structural elements of a specific technique (Semper 2015) [60].

Discussing the raw state of materials and new expressions of tectonics is impossible because traditional materials such as stone have exhausted their structural and spatial potential (Bötticher 1992) [61]. A new expression for tectonics can be obtained using a particular technique discovered for a particular substance. For example, local building traditions perceive materials’ structural and constructional nature directly as a means of spatial expression (Oxman 2012) [62]. Therefore, the production of space results from the relationship between the material and the method. However, the technique that discovers and reveals a new language appropriate for the material has richer content in the production of space. While materials are always constant, techniques are developed by diversifying or developing methods for the material. Tectonic expressions were also enriched in the context of developing techniques. For example, knotting is the oldest and most basic technique used by the first nomadic cultures to establish space (Hartoonian 1994) [49]. Therefore, the most basic tectonic component was the knot. Later, when it became more prosperous, technical concepts such as joints, tectonic fiction, and the production of space also varied.

Space of architect: Despite using technical and structural elements as tools, tectonics is the expression of an area broader than defined. While this technique proposes three-dimensional formations in the material–form relationship, tectonics defines multilayered states such as time, action, imagination, and perception in the space–form relationship. Semper defines tectonics as a cosmic art such as music and dance; ‘tectonics deals with the production of human artistic skills, not with its utilitarian aspect but solely with that part that reveals a conscious attempt by the artisan to express cosmic laws and cosmic order when moulding the material’ (Herrmann 1984, 151) [63]. This is why tectonics has a more structural–symbolic (expression of space) meaning than a structural–technical meaning. Rather than being the physical expression of the structural system, ‘tectonic symbolises the concept of structure and space that, in its purely structural state, cannot be perceived’ (Bötticher 1992) [61].

Space of users: The multilayered situations created by tectonics are, of course, for the user of the space. It can even be thought that the multilayered experiences of space are a coproduction of architecture and users. While architects create material conditions for the user, the user decides on other dimensions beyond material/immaterial among these material conditions (Hill 2006) [58]. In the tectonic context, the material situation created by architects should not be understood as a model of experience. Tectonics is an architectural expression that can be converted by the user and does not have a fixed use, location, or meaning, as in the discussions of Tafuri, who adds value to individual experiences by encouraging the production and discovery of ambiguous objects and claims that the meaning of objects should be relative instead of specific (Tafuri 1980) [64], the tectonic mode of production of the architectural object is also based on polysemy. ‘The user’s experience depends on the complex juxtapositions of many moments and conditions that resist easy resolution’ (Hill 2006, 47) [58]. Hence, perceptions accumulated from many viewpoints overlap instead of a fixed observer, an immobile perceptual field, or a stable visual world. Space was created and transformed through experience.

3.2.2. Building Technologies II Course Methodology: Tectonic Practices

The BT II course builds on the knowledge and experience gained in the BT I course. It focuses on students’ understanding and production of architectural objects in terms of spatial properties, place, time, and action. Course methodology has three main areas of discussion. The first is the identification of constraints such as climate, topography, time, and action as the conditions under which the architectural object is born. The second aspect concerns the design and production of the floor, walls/perimeters, and coverings. This process involves the transformation of design genes into holistic constructions. The third is the production of space, which defines the structural nature of holistic construction.

Table 7. Building Technologies II course semester chapters and contents.

Building Technologies II Course 12-Week Syllabus
	Weeks	Content	Practise
Stage 1	1–5	Discussion of constraints such as climate, topography, sensation, time, action	Constructing and producing the context
Stage 2	6–10	Discussion of structural elements such as floor, cover, and wall and transformation of design genes to establish holistic construction	Creation of architectural space according to context and structural elements
Stage 3	11–12	The production of space	Analogue and digital reproduction of context and construction integrity

presents the course contents for each semester.

The BT II course focuses on the structure and content of the space and is supported by presentations, discussions, studio work, and assignments. Digital and analogue tools were used to produce space, and students’ intuitive and creative skills were developed. Computerisation of production is essential, allowing the rationalisation of materials and methods. Learning by doing, experimenting, and using digital production allows students to produce in both physical and digital environments. On the one hand, the knowledge of making associated with the processing of materials and crafts gives students the ability to identify the physical conditions of space and the structural elements of action; on the other hand, practical knowledge and details for production in digital environments are developed. Thus, by combining physical and digital production, students can design structural elements such as floors, walls, and ceilings and develop the tectonic qualities that make up the space. This process involves a transformation from the recognition and manipulation of materials that begins in BT I course to a holistic approach in BT II course. The BT II course methodology is based on three main stages and their corresponding practical work.

In the first stage (Weeks 1–5), at the beginning of Building II, students examine the primary conditions under which an architectural object is built. At this stage, they must imagine and describe the place of their choice, the natural environment, or a fictional place at a specific time. Actions related to the geographical and fictional characteristics of a place are discussed in detail. In the design of a space, the relationship between the characteristics of the place, materials, and form-building techniques is essential. This process aims to enable students to produce and present a holistic design specific to their chosen site (

Table 8. Visuals and models produced for the designed location and proposed action (2022–2020).

S-1, S-3 -2022	Characteristics of the context	A place on the slope of a forested hill and by the water				Produced Image
	Action	Sitting, sun protection
	Models	1/500			1/50
S-35, S-36-2021	Characteristics of the context	A place on the cliffs and by the sea with a rainy weather				Produced Image
	Action	Taking a break during a nature walk, watching the scenery, sitting
	Models	1/500		1/50
S-30, 2020	Characteristics of the context	A rocky hill in the middle of the sea				Produced Image
	Action	Sitting, viewing the landscape
	Models	1/500			1/50

,

Table 9. Visuals and models produced for the designed location and proposed action (2019–2018).

S-31, S-32 -2019	Characteristics of the Context	A place in the desert and on top of a hill			Produced Image
	Action	Taking a break, watching, standing in the shade, drinking water
	Models	1/500		1/50
S-13- 2018	Characteristics of the Context	A cave on a rocky hill by the sea			Produced Image
	Action	Swimming in the sea, mooring the boat, sunbathing
	Models	1/500		1/50

,

Table 10. Tectonic characteristics and spatial–structural integrity expressions (2021–2022).

S-1, S-3-2022	A	Representation of context
	B	Gene transfer
	C	Construction
S-36, S-37 -2021	A	Representation of context
	B	Gene transfer
	C	Construction

and

Table 11. Tectonic characteristics and spatial–structural integrity expressions (2018–2020).

S-30-2020	A	Representation of context
	B	Gene transfer
	C	Construction
S-31, S-32-2019	A	Representation of context
	B	Gene transfer
	C	Construction
S-13- 2018	A	Representation of context
	B	Gene transfer
	C	Construction

, Row A).

In the second stage (weeks 6–10), the essential structural elements of the space, such as floors, roofs, and walls, are evaluated using modern architectural examples. The connotations and sub-concepts of these elements (such as perimeter, cover, and boundary) are explored, linked to the context created in the first part, and experimented with regarding the material, form, and method. Students are expected to integrate these elements into a holistic construction, create a unique material–form relationship, explore different possibilities for spatial integrity, and engage in creative processes. The BT II course focuses on developing students’ skills in constructing spaces and producing structural elements by reevaluating the knowledge and experience gained in the BT I course on a larger architectural scale and form. A methodology called gene transfer enables students to apply the technical knowledge and design approaches acquired in the BT I course to more complex structural and spatial problems in the BT II course. This gene transfer involves reconsidering, at an architectural scale, the basic design units that form the essence of the space and architectural object (see Table 10 and Table 11 Row B). Gene transfer intervals enhance a design’s structural and spatial quality and the search for or creation of tectonic excellence (Bustos 2019, 238) [53].

The second stage allows designers to explore the nature of the material and construction methods for the production of space and design an innovative and holistic architectural construction by discussing the material qualities and forms of structural elements. In this process, construction knowledge is fed by rational knowledge, and design genes are transformed by rational and technical knowledge. This second stage of the BT II course aims to enable designers to develop more complex and layered spatial and structural thinking, design innovative holistic architectural constructions, and serve as fundamental building blocks for the production of space.

In the third stage (Weeks 11–12), designers use digital tools to explore the impact of digitised design genes on the placemaking process. This process comprehensively analyses how design genes can be integrated into the integrity of action, context, and spatial form. This study combines tectonic discussions with efforts to create a holistic architectural concept, focusing on transforming and shaping materials and considering how design genes function within spatial integrity. Students work at different scales (e.g., 1/20, 1/10, 1/5, and 1/2) and visualise their work with maquettes and digital models while detailing the tectonic properties of their spatial whole (see Table 10 and Table 11, Row C). This process aims to develop critical thinking, problem-solving, and creative production skills while assessing the appropriateness of the design for place, time, and action.

The architectural object-making process in the BT II course allows students to explore the creation and production of space through complex and multidimensional connections, such as action, context, and time, from the object-making process. Here, students learn to form holistic constructions through material and form and to understand the network of relationships between context and action. In this process, students understand tectonic quality’s theoretical and practical dimensions.

4. Discussion

This study goes beyond traditional BT courses. It presents innovative course content and methodology in which the designed object and the construction knowledge of that object are produced simultaneously, enabling students to discover their construction methods through design-oriented and intuitive approaches. The courses are not limited to theoretical knowledge but create a learning environment that enables the acquisition of construction knowledge through creative thinking and experimentation. The results show that rich learning experiences beyond technical knowledge contribute to students’ conceptual thinking, development of creative actions, and experiential learning.

By adopting an innovative methodology that combines conceptual and practical elements, this study allows students to explore their personal techniques and creative potential through the concepts of making, techniques, and tectonics. This strengthens the theory–practice link with experience-based learning. The productions exhibited in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 and Table 8 emphasise the effectiveness of this methodology that supports the development of students’ creative and personal production skills and the originality of architectural objects that are not based on rational knowledge. Furthermore, in the BT I and II courses, the final productions in Table 5 and Table 9 emphasise the intuitive knowledge of construction based on learning-by-doing rather than theoretical and rational knowledge. These works show the importance of intuitive construction knowledge as an alternative to rational knowledge and that it gains a richer meaning when integrated with rational and practical knowledge.

BT I and II courses go beyond traditional design methods based on rational knowledge through experimentation, intuition, and learning-by-doing approaches. This process involves uncertainty and risk-taking for teachers and students, with no method leading to a definitive outcome. However, this uncertainty prepares the grounds for discovering innovative ways of thinking and producing, giving students a new approach that prioritises design over rationality and practice.

Despite the innovations brought about by these courses, it is essential to recognise areas for further improvement and future research directions. For instance, whereas the BT I course effectively utilises analogue and tactile methods, the BT II course predominantly employs digital examples and processes. This shift may affect the depth of experiential learning achieved through tangible, hands-on projects. Future course iterations could benefit from integrating a 1:1 scale of spatial construction in group settings to bridge the gap between theory and practice comprehensively. Such adjustments would enhance practical skills and foster a more balanced approach to learning the digital and physical aspects of BT courses.

The experimental approaches of the courses enabled students to focus on the properties of the materials and continue developing their search for techniques throughout the course. This ensured a continuous interaction between theory and practice and established a substance–form interaction. Table 8 shows the development of this technique. This development process was achieved by encouraging students to explore materials’ properties and search for classroom techniques. Therefore, it is possible to teach construction knowledge experimentally, as demonstrated in the studies. Furthermore, developing construction knowledge through experimentation and using student intuition in the classroom are essential in creating and developing different technical and tectonic approaches. The experimental environment provided students with basic construction and design skills they will use to solve architectural design problems in their educational and professional lives.

Design genes allow students to express their creativity through personal production methods that surpass rational approaches. Thus, it has been shown that current methods of construction education can be challenged. Table 5 shows how the design genes can produce their original forms and how these genes are associated with technical knowledge. Students’ exploration of design genes using these methods allows them to create new forms of diverse qualities. This process contributes to developing design genes, rational knowledge, and alternative approaches to traditional building education (Figure 7).

This study showed that it is possible to prioritise and focus on design in BT courses education and relate it to the concept of making by developing methods suitable for recognising and transforming materials. The courses went beyond the direct transmission of building knowledge and provided opportunities for students to construct knowledge about making the object and adapting production methods. This approach enabled students new to architecture and construction courses to discover their innovative and creative sides and generate creative objects/spaces (Table 4).

It has been observed that the original construction knowledge and methods produced in the context of the concepts of technique in the BT I course and tectonics in the BT II course have developed through interactions with local, aesthetic, physical, and social contexts, and the object and space have inevitable relations not only with rational knowledge but also with these discussed contexts. Therefore, it can be said that transitioning from the rigid approaches of modernity that create standards for construction to non-standard and specialised structural conditions in which material–form–construction methods and techniques are created is essential in obtaining original spatial approaches.

5. Conclusions

This study presents two innovative courses (BT I and BT II) that transcend traditional content and methods, emphasising personal expression, creativity, and experimental approaches in architectural education. The proposed Basic Building Technologies I and II courses offer a process beyond merely transmitting rational knowledge, fostering creative thinking and conceptual depth. These courses establish a learning environment where theoretical and practical content related to construction is supported by conceptual and experimental tools that facilitate the exploration of creativity. This approach provides a solution rooted in concepts and experiments that allows for the development of original and creative structural content, free from the limitations of purely rational knowledge.

The experiments conducted by students on materials and construction techniques have enabled them to grasp structural techniques and, consequently, transform the conditions of space production. This hands-on learning environment, built on theoretical approaches, goes beyond technical knowledge and rational methodologies, enabling construction knowledge to be acquired and utilised within a creative framework. These courses empower students to engage in experiential interaction with materials and construction processes, leading to the development of unique architectural solutions. Thus, students are encouraged to discover their construction methods through intuitive and experimental approaches, resulting in an educational model that supports creative thinking and learning through doing and experimentation. It has been observed that these courses have significantly enhanced students’ creative thinking abilities, their capacity to explore and develop materials and construction techniques on a personal level, and their understanding of the relationship between theory and practice.

This study also highlights the importance of balancing digital and physical learning environments in architectural education. The BT II course focuses on effectively integrating digital tools to enhance spatial design. This integration allows students to practice digital production techniques and material knowledge. Addressing digital and physical processes enables students to utilise their theoretical and practical knowledge more effectively, fostering innovation in architectural creativity and technical applications.

The results demonstrate that students have gained a deeper understanding of architecture’s material and structural aspects by developing their creativity and technical skills. Moreover, the significant increase in students’ creative thinking capacities, their ability to personally explore and develop materials and construction techniques, and their deepened understanding of the relationship between theory and practice have been evident. In this context, the proposed course content and methods offer an innovative contribution to architectural education, enabling the development of alternative approaches to learning processes. The study shows that alternative approaches can address the issues arising from the lack of construction courses prioritising conceptual thinking and design within the current educational system.

Specifically, the BT I and II courses have addressed the lack of opportunities for students to develop intuitive and experimental approaches, provided tools for exploring the conceptual and practical aspects of construction, created environments for learning through experimentation in the field of construction, and enabled students to grasp the relationship between theory and practice. These courses propose an innovative and integrative educational model applicable to Turkiye and international architectural education systems.

Monitoring how students apply the knowledge gained from these courses in subsequent design courses and professional practice is crucial for understanding the long-term effects. In this regard, more effective evaluation and feedback mechanisms will be developed to measure the success of these courses accurately.

The content and methods of these courses are not intended to replace existing BT courses or Construction Knowledge courses. Instead, the BT I and II courses provide a complementary foundation to traditional construction courses, helping students to understand construction within the framework of design and creativity. These courses aim to provide students with creative and practical solutions throughout their education and professional lives by recognising the importance of construction in architectural creativity. Just as Basic Design Courses present new approaches to architectural education and practice, these Basic Building Courses are expected to bring new perspectives to the field.