Re-thinking architectural education with the Z-generation: “Bricolage” as a visual learning style



The first year of architectural design, the Generation Z, Bricolage, Representation Methods, Visual Learning


Developments in information and communication technology, which constantly change the way we perceive the world, have affected the learning styles of the individuals of the generation Z towards being visual and image-oriented. The perception styles and short interest periods of this generation, who are the learners of today's higher education institutions, are constantly fed with multiple visual flows and instantly changing information, so that the current learning system requires a differentiation by learner-centered approach. In architectural education, where visual communication, perception, and representation techniques are at the forefront, the learning process begins with conventional thinking tools, so it may be insufficient to attract the attention of the Generation Z. In this context, the aim of the study is based on re-evaluating the conventional tools in first-grade architectural education within the scope of interests and abilities of the Generation Z. In this study, the design tools that will be reconsidered for first-grade architectural education are established within the framework of the concept of "bricolage" which is seen as the way of the Generation Z's perception. This notion is the ability to integrate different parts with the creative element into a common context. Within the scope of the study, bricolage is interpreted as a learning style that conventional representation expressions are constructed with multiple sequence narratives. In the study, visual narrative techniques such as stop-motion, gif-motion, storyboard, and collage are determined as suitable representation methods for the concept of bricolage. In this context, the method of the study is to discuss these techniques as design tools and grouping them according to the way of creating. These visual narrative techniques, created based on simultaneity or succession, are thought to be a tool to explore the possibilities of action of spaces and design architecture in the context of events. Consequently, the bricolage approach, which puts the learner at the center, enables first-year students, who are not familiar with architectural education methods to acquire basic knowledge and skills. Besides, it is suitable for the kinesthetic learning styles of these individuals, who are Generation Z. In this context, the development of this conceptual reading as a methodology to investigate the action possibilities of spaces and design the architecture in the context of events creates a new perspective for future studies.


Acar, A. (2008). A developmental perspective for architectural design education. Edinburgh Architecture Research, 31, 22-25.

Aroztegui, C. (2013). Life stories, storyboards, and animatics in architectural education. Arquiteturarevista, 9(2), 135-142.

Aydınlı, S. (2015). Tasarım eğitiminde yapılandırıcı paradigma: “Öğrenmeyi öğrenme”. Tasarım+ Kuram, 11(20), 1-18.

Beşgen, A., Köseoğlu, Ş. (2019). Sinema-mimarlık arakesitinde bir mekâna dokunmak: Sine-tasarım atölyesi. SineFilozofi, 26-52.

Brown, J. S. (2000). Growing up: Digital: How the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 32(2), 11-20.

Cilliers, E. J. (2017). The challenge of teaching generation Z. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 188-198.

Cook, P. (2014). Drawing: The motive force of architecture. John Wiley & Sons.

Davids, R. (1999). Serial vision: Storyboards in the design studio. In 87th ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, 239-245.

Deleuze, G. (2005). Cinema 1: Movement image. Continuum.

Ding, D., Guan, C., Yu, Y. (2017). Game-based learning in tertiary education: A new learning experience for the generation Z. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(2):148-152.

Dostoğlu, T. N. (2003). Dosya: Mimarlık eğitiminde tasarım stüdyolarına farklı yaklaşımlar, mimarlık eğitiminde ilk yıl mimari tasarım stüdyosu Uludağ Üniversitesi örneği. Ege Mimarlık, 47(3), 15-19.

Edwards, B. (2008). Understanding architecture through drawing. Taylor & Francis.

Erden, N. S. (2017). Yeni nesillere yeni öğretim yöntemleri: Z kuşağının öğrenme stilleri ve yükseköğrenim için öneriler. International Journal of Academic Value Studies, 3(12), 249-257.

Farivarsadri, G. (2001). A critical view on pedagogical dimension of introductory design in architectural education. Architectural Education Exchange, 2001, 1-11.

Fuentes, G. (2014). Pedagogy with and against the Flow: Generational shifts, social media, and the gen Z brain. In 102nd ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, Globalizing Architecture/Flows And Disruptions, 669-677.

Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 123-143.

Graafland, A. (2008). Camera eye: A machine for projective practice in architecture. The Architect, 6(13), 222-255.

Gür, B. (2017). Praksis: Eylem olarak tasarım ve eğitimi. Şengül Öymen Gür (Ed.). Mimari tasarım eğitimine çağdaş önermeler içinde. YEM Yayın.

Gürer, T. K., Yücel, A. (2005). Bir paradigma olarak mimari temsilin incelenmesi (Examination of Architectural Representation as a Paradigm). ITU Dergisi/a: Mimarlık, Planlama, Tasarım, 4(1), 84-96.

Güzelçoban Mayuk, S., Coşgun, N. (2020). Learning by doing in architecture education: Building science course example. International Journal of Education in Architecture and Design, 1(1), 2-15.

Jones, V., Jo, J., Martin, P. (2007). Future schools and how technology can be used to support millennial and generation-Z students. In ICUT 2007 (Proc. B), 1st Int. Conf. Ubiquitous Information Technology, 886-891.

Kavalcı, K., Ünal, S. (2016). Y ve Z kuşaklarının öğrenme stilleri ve tüketici karar verme tarzları açısından karşılaştırılması. Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences, 20(3), 1033-1050.

Kincheloe, J., Berry, K. (2004). Rigour & Complexity. In Educational Research. Open University Press.

Kowaltowski, D. C., Bianchi, G., & De Paiva, V. T. (2010). Methods that may stimulate creativity and their use in architectural design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 453-476.

Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H. (2013). Bilim eğitiminde yapılandırıcı paradigma. Pegem Akademi.

Lasala, H., Hines, A. (1993). On the verge: Designing first design, 10th National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Tulane University.

Lawson, B.R. (1990). How designers think (Second Edition). Butterworth Architecture.

Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of design ın studio teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), 2-8.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. University of Chicago Press.

Louridas, P. (1999). Design as bricolage: Anthropology meets design thinking. Design Studies, 20(6), 517-535.

McCloud, S. (1993). Understanding comics: The invisible Art. Northampton, Mass.

Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J. L., Lippincott, J. K. (2005). Educating the net generation. Boulder, Colo.: EDUCAUSE, C2005. 1 V.(Various Pagings): Illustrations.

Parnell, R. (2001). It’s good to talk: Managing disjunction through peer discussion. Architectural Education Exchange. Cardiff: September.

Piedmont-Palladino, S. (2007). Tools of the imagination: Drawing tools and technologies from the eighteenth century to the present. Princeton Architectural Press.

Pallasmaa, J. (2000). Hapticity and time. Architectural Review, 207(1), 78-84.

Quici, F. (2017). Architecture and visual narrative. In Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings 1(9), 1082.

Radford, A. (2000). Games and learning about formin architecture. Automation In Construction, 9(4), 379-385.

Robbins, E. (1997). Why designers draw. MIT Press.

Roberts, L. (2018). Spatial bricolage: The art of poetically making do. Humanities, 7(2), 43.

Rothman, D. A. (2016). Tsunami of learners called generation Z.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Temple Smith.

Somol, R. E. (1999). Dummy text, or the diagrammatic basis of contemporary architecture. Diagram Diaries, 6-25.

Szuta, A., Taraszkiewicz, A. (2020). The role of traditional architectural models in the first stages of education. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 18, 177-182.

Tschumi, B. (2018). Mimarlık ve kopma. Janus.

Tümertekin, H. (1999). Sıfırda başlamak. Anytime Bildiri Kitabı. Mimarlar Derneği, Ankara, 52-56.

Zarin, R., Lindbergh, K., Fallman, D. (2012). Stop motion animation as a tool for sketching in architecture. Proceedings of DRS,78-86.

Generation Z, (t.y.) (12.06.2020).