A NEW APPROACH “SODAP” / WORKSHOP COURSES

Cigdem B. GOKHAN Inst.

Çankaya University
Theme: Curriculum
Keywords: architectural education, design education; new method: sodap, practice
- theory gap and education
“Architectural education has always been in tension with architectural practice. T
hat is how it should be; practice sometimes gets complacent and education is the
re as a kind of conscience, trying to correct what seems to be going wrong, So f
rom time immemorial the architect has been subject to learning in two quite diff
erent ways, theory in classroom of some kind and practice, on the job or in the
office.”
G. BROADBENT
The subject of this paper “SODAP” based mainly on the opinions briefly outlined in t
he course of this paper, which are the current problems and quest for solving th
e existing problems. Therefore, if the problem setting were not correct the resu
lt of that scientific study would not be correct either. Discussion of the probl
em may not be comprehensive within the scope of any conference paper, but in thi
s part of the paper; the understanding of ‘Existing Situation’ will be summarized,
the observations and understanding is focused on the situation of Turkey. Then,
a new proposal “SODAP” will be discussed briefly.
A. EXISTING SITUATION
Problems Of Design Profession In General
While preparing curricula, we attempt to cover as much subjects as the students
should handle in their future professional life, however, the graduates usually
are not fully equipped with the essence of these subjects that we forethought. M
ost of the time architectural graduates, or any design professional find themsel
ves in a totally new environment completely different than academic environment.
Clients have vague concepts on architecture; builders/workers have no idea on d
esign, aesthetics, and philosophy of architecture. Meantime they find themselves
to cope with the cost, materials availability; new techniques; a variety of p
rofessionals and technicians and even unprofessional people to work with, in add
ition complicated legal procedures and bureaucracy. In time, with practice, p
rofessional maturity obtained through culture and experience and concrete concep
ts will flourish, but how fast can this procedure be shortened? On the other ha
nd students find themselves in a confusing situation, various job opportunities
in branch fields in the profession without knowing which one to choose.
Design as an optimization process of the various conceptual and technological el
ements such as; user needs, social, psychological and personal needs; aesthetics
; environmental factors, structural factors; building physics, scientific laws,
legislative rules and regulations; additionally, newly graduates have to deal wi
th presentation techniques and communication skills to envelope this totally n
ovice product. The elements of optimization can be categorized also in two compl
ementary groups, as the tangible/ fact and figures (recognizable /measurable)
and the intangible (vague or conceptual). Because of the unpredictable characte
r of the intangible or conceptual side of design, such as: variation of needs fr
om user to user and changing of needs or situations from one date to the other,
with the impact of economy, design and teach how to design a real difficult task
. From architects point of view, any design product or architecture is a final m
anifestation of the total design process. So how can education or training of a
rchitecture handle this difficult task? By teaching the students the tangibles?
It is possible; but for intangibles, they may be taught as well but to what exte
nd? Can both be taught without a compromise? Since almost all the student works
will stay on paper; how can a student have an idea of what her/his design would
look like when it is realized, how far it can satisfy the user/customer and he o
r she him/herself? To what extent can it fit to the environment? To what extent
the project get necessary approval from legal authorities? On the other hand ho
w to start a design is another issue. Do all the architects start designing by t
aking these factors into consideration at the very beginning as step by step, or
rather start to research and design parallel wise? Can we make a model, ‘simulat
ion’ of exact situation? 3D, even virtual reality programs, and simulation program
s could help to solve the above matters satisfactorily?
Talent and desire of student on the subject; his/her concentration, imagination
of 3D spaces, proportions, feeling of space, feeling the soul of architecture of
a building are also important items to be considered in design education.
The Gap Between Professional Practice And Education / Theory
Possible Job Opportunities Awaiting For Any Graduate Of Architecture Or Interior
Architecture School
Graduates of design schools aspire the model of a working environment in a desig
n office or having his or hers own office. However, this narrow view and hope us
ually never happens and graduates find themselves in a surprising work environme
nt, where usually they are not prepared for. No detailed research on this subjec
t has been carried out In Turkey yet, professional organizations, such as Chambe
r of architects, have some data but not scientifically analyzed to address the i
ssue. In Turkey, likewise other open market countries, investment in constructio
n business is largely effected by country’s economical venue. So the affiliation o
f the graduates varies a lot and fluctuates with the change of the economical si
tuation.
In Turkey professional rights and privileges are acquired directly after graduat
ion, so that the graduates must have the necessary knowledge and experience befo
rehand.
A comprehensive architectural education program should cover all above problems
and issues, as thorough as possible. This required for future professional to ad
apt himself to a professional life that wide range of interdisciplinary variatio
ns. The following list is the possibilities of working fields that await the gra
duates of architecture and interior architects. They can practice these fields i
n a private or governmental job places, including factories or their own private
establishments.
• Architectural design,
• Urban design
• Interior design
• Renovation
• Furniture design
• Product design or any other general designing
• Bathroom and kitchen designing and / or their marketing
• Textile design and/or its marketing
• Construction material marketing
• Furniture and decorative elements marketing
• Technical drawing
• CAD-CAM operator
• Computer programming related to design matters
• Rendering
• Model making
• Photography
• Site supervisor
• Project supervising
• Cost control and /or quantity surveying
• Consultant / advisor
• Contract document specialist
• Trading / import-export of design or construction products
The Preliminary Knowledge Needed For The Above Possible Jobs In General:

1. Design techniques on every scale

2. Rendering techniques, model making, photography, and other presentation
methods
3. Research techniques
4. Computer knowledge
5. Programming techniques
6. Problem solving techniques
7. Good knowledge of recent construction and detailing materials
8. Good knowledge of legal responsibility
9. Marketing knowledge
10. Self marketing techniques and skills
11. Detailing techniques
12. Quantity surveying knowledge
13. Construction management techniques
14. Verbal and written communication techniques
15. Human relations skills
Learning And Teaching Theories
There are numerous types of curricula as there are number of universities. It se
ems each one of them approaches differently to the problem of education of desig
n. May be it is due to the fact that, difference of the culture and characterist
ics of the university and of the specific urban environment it takes place. Wher
e one method is right for one community and its university while the other may b
e wrong. But still the teaching depends on the learning phenomena, where the mec
hanism is same for all human beings. In the field of psychology of learning,
many theories and models of teaching developed. These theories and models are al
ready in application in our design studios and other lecture classes. But some s
till may have an impact on our programs and these support to our approach. To ‘SOD
AP’ workshop. As a summary these are:
• Social Cognition Learning Model- child learns through problem solving experience
s shared with someone else. (Vyogotsky, 1962)
• Social Learning Theory (Observational Learning)- Learning by observation involve
s four separate processes: attention, retention, production (capable of producin
g the act), and motivation (reason to do so). (Bandura, 1986)
• Behaviorism- Positive and negative reinforcement techniques can be very effectiv
e on learning (Phillips and Soltis)
• Constructivism- Meaning requires wholes as well as its parts; Learning is just n
ot memorizing right answers but to construct his or her own meaning. (Brooks & B
rooks)
• Multiple Intelligence Model- There are at least seven ways to learn. Verbal, log
ical, visual, kinesthetic, musical, communication with others, self reflection (
Gardner)
• Brain Based Learning- Learning is best when facts imbedded in natural, spatial m
emory. (Caine)
• Learning Styles Theory – Individuals perceive and process information in different
ways. Concrete and abstract perceivers; Active and reflective perceivers. (Kol
b)
• Right Brain Verses Left Bran: Emphasis should be given on activities by incorpor
ating, more patterning, metaphors, analogies, role playing, visual and movement
into their reading, calculations and analytical activities. (Mc Carthy)
• Communities And Practice Approach- Knowledge is inseparable from practice. By do
ing we learn. (Institute For Research And Learning)
• Aesthetic Realism Method – Adjectives encourage interest and oppose cynicism. Stud
ents wanted desperately to respect themselves for how they used their minds. Wri
ting with descriptions adds interest in spaces. ( Eli, 1967)
From Students And Graduates Point Of View
The graduates usually work as apprentices in the sector, especially at the begin
ning. And if they have the opportunity to design, the final design / building wi
ll usually have problems, and the new graduate usually learns through experience
on the client’s account.
Another issue is society’s understanding of architect, and interior architect. In
Turkey the architectural profession is usually misunderstood and confused with
structural engineering and even with builder, or worker. Interior architects are
confused with decorators or even wall painters. (Aslantamer, 2000) Legislativel
y civil engineers and some other technical professionals have right to sign smal
l architectural projects, especially in small settlements, and there are no regu
lations for interior works, therefore graduates have difficulty of introducing t
hemselves. On the other hand, the profession is quite new to the society; the fi
rst interior architectural school was established 70 years ago. So the graduates
should be equipped with marketing strategies as well.
B. TRIAL OF SOLVING THEORY – PRACTICE GAP: “ SODAP ” WORKSHOP
To find a solution to all above stated problems, which are valid for most of the
other professions, an applied education method is introduced through out the Çan
kaya University. Before going into the detail of the situation in our Departme
nt and new course “SODAP” course, brief explanation of the Turkish University System
; Our University and Department will be given to picture the background.
Every year almost 1.5 million high school graduates apply to University entrance
examinations (OSS). Higher level, 90 to 95th percentile of students, accepted
to engineering, medical, architectural departments of government universities, t
he preferences of students are primarily based on the fashionable schools, high
earning and easy job finding disciplines, such as, computer sciences, electronic
s, management, industrial engineering, The admission is done through a computer
evaluation of a knowledge based aptitude test. However Interior architecture sch
ools have 2nd level exams among the students who could not enter these departmen
ts. During their high school education these students usually had no background
education to continue in architectural schools, thus almost all of them have no
basic knowledge of drawing, understanding of arts or similar. Also all universi
ty programs apart from medical schools, last for four years. Coming to the situa
tion of our University, which has started education four years ago, as a private
foundation, has only single department related to architectural discipline, whi
ch is interior architecture. Which has only two years background. To establish a
sound place among other universities Çankaya University accepts the principle “appl
ied education” or “unity of theory and practice in education”. Therefore from the begi
nning of curricula structuring, our department, Interior Architecture accepts th
is principle as goal, and tries to achieve this goal in every course. In the mea
ntime most of our students, which may belong to 80th to 90th percentile group of
the entrees, unfortunately have no idea of the profession, they may not have an
y talent, knowledge or understanding of art or architecture at all. So the chall
enge of curriculum preparation lies on, how to educate these students, and prepa
re them to professional life in four years, give them to love of creation, and y
et, make them superior to interior architecture graduates of other universities.
That is why the whole curriculum is arranged and prepared on the basis of the
unity of theory and practice in education.
Therefore SODAP Courses are developed and put directly into action. Basing on a
theoretical study, development of SODAP is possible, depending on the faculty’s ex
periences in various fields of the profession such as academic, private and gove
rnmental experiences in design and construction.
Main Goals And Objectives Of “SODAP” Workshops
As it is mentioned above nowadays, with globalization, developments in telecom
and IT, students’ study modes have changed. Students can make their researches th
rough World Wide Web, and get information from all over the world by Internet.
All these developments make the education a lot easier and quite helpful with th
e tools and means provided. How will the future shape the education? And how doe
s a curriculum be adaptive to cover future developments with traditional educati
on methods seem a real enigma. Should we change the whole traditional education
system? With the development of new generation of intelligent computers will th
e architects’ role diminish? How curricula of architectural schools follow up the
se fast changes?
In Çankaya University, while preparing the curricula with the aim of solving the s
eparation of theory/education and practice problem, and its forthcoming issues,
a series of courses named ‘Workshops’ have been introduced. The goal was to equip th
e school with many workshops, such as photography, architectural modeling, multi
media, carpentry, painting etc. and to make students to design and produce, do a
s more practice as possible during their education. So the workshop courses wer
e programmed for 8 contact hours per week for each semester and continue all sem
esters during four years. But this traditional approach of workshops would not
cover all the problems stated above. How would a new approach be developed to so
lve the issue of theory and practice, and possible problems related to students
and the new technologies of 21st century? How can it be adaptive and flexible? F
or a new University the investments of these workshops are costly, which one of
the workshop is given the priority? What if some of them become obsolete in the
near future? So a new approach is developed: SODAP , “ the whole city is taken
as a total workshop area.”
. This is an experimental approach and reaching a scientific conclusion is quite
difficult unless couples of graduate groups are studied, the program is being d
eveloped, and will be developed by research, findings and feedbacks. It seems th
at, this approach can be applied in all sorts of design schools and even by othe
r applied science schools, or even by law schools, which would need theory pract
ice unification, with small variations and adaptation.
The ‘SODAP’ courses continue for each semester for four years, and course syllabi is
the same for all, as follows:
“Workshop exercises to correlate skills gained at theoretical courses into practic
e.”
Having a cross sectional character in SODAP courses every subject find its place
in the course. The field of SODAP covers Urban Life Interactions Field and Scho
olwork and study field. (fig.2). One foot of SODAP is always in real life so tha
t it provides a connection of theory and practice. And, transfer of learning eme
rges through accumulation obtained in design courses and the knowledge accumulat
ed in theoretical courses and with the practice in SODAP courses, students, depe
nding on their capacity of personal creativity, can apply these accumulated know
ledge in real life, in practice. Personal creativity here, is not confined with
design creativity, but rather creativity in every sense, creativity in presentat
ion, finding jobs, solving details, etc. (fig.2) For design courses, for example
, one of the most difficult task is to decide upon the scale, human dimension an
d factors, basic design elements and principles, environmental control systems.
For example, certain heat level can be appropriate for certain environment of ce
rtain task theoretically, But the effect of size, proportion of the space, the m
aterial, the color, the texture, the pattern is difficult to calculate from user’s
point
Fig. 1 Field Of Sodap Courses
Usually, in standard workshop or construction course, students are asked to deve
lop a construction or detail projects, and at most, they are expected to make th
ese details in workshops. The boundary of SODAP is not confined with constructio
n and detailing subjects but rather embraces almost all of the courses and their
relation in real life situation. Therefore the courses need prior basic knowled
ge.
Almost all of the courses are separate and specialized in certain field and we e
xpect students to apply all information in a mixed way in their designs and espe
cially in their professional life So SODAP course is designed to fill this gap
as well as a binding agent. It is not specialized in the sense of knowledge. It
is rather cross sectional. (fig.1)
The objectives are simple
• Students should be prepared for the professional life as far as possible
• These courses should exemplify or simulate the after graduation life. So that, p
ractice should cover almost all theoretical subjects.
• Same subjects can be given each year but, from simple to more complex
• Detailed course syllabi should be flexible to provide relation with other course
s, especially to design studios,
• Courses should be adaptive to changes of the recent technological development, a
s well as the changes of social and cultural factors,
• Courses should be adaptive to the student groups and their capacity and capabili
ty,
• Students should be given the opportunity to develop their own understanding of t
he profession and their interest areas,
• Students also should set free to develop their professional skills,
• Students should rather feel themselves in the market, not broke apart from real
life,
• Basic learning rules should be applied,
• Faculty must be chosen among the ones who have professional practice in various
categories,
• Relation with other courses should be conducted by regular faculty meetings of t
hat specific curriculum year,
• Any project, designed within the scope of this course can be implemented by the
student or a group of professional technicians that mimicking real life situatio
n. (Designers almost all of the times do not apply their designs by themselves,
so, similar to that, students can be given the permission to ask someone to do i
t for themselves, so the designs prepared in this course preferably will be prod
uced by the student, or can be produced by someone else, under the supervision o
f the student.)
1.2. Learning Principles Applied
The program of the courses based on the goals and objectives and learning theori
es mentioned above to achieve these goals and objectives.
The following concepts of cognition are the basis of SODAP.
Looking is not necessarily seeing, forced looking will end by seeing, therefore
learning,
Observing is learning,
Feeling with 6 senses is learning,
Mimicking is learning
Drawing is learning.
Writing is learning
Discussion is learning
Researching is learning
Making analysis is learning
Criticizing is learning.
Expressing one’s idea is learning
Teaching is learning.
Experiencing the real life situation is learning,
Doing is learning,
Experiencing is learning,
Sharing is learning
Evaluating is learning
Repetition enhances learning

Fig. 2 Transfer of Learning Process

Fig. 3 Representation of Real Life Situation
Having a cross sectional character in SODAP workshops, every subject find its pl
ace in the course. The field of SODAP covers Urban Life Interactions Field and S
choolwork and study field. (fig.2). One foot of SODAP is always in real life so
that it provides a connection of theory and practice. And, transfer of learning
emerges through accumulation obtained in design courses and the knowledge accumu
lated in theoretical courses and with the practice in SODAP courses, students, d
epending on their capacity of personal creativity, can apply these accumulated k
nowledge in real life, in practice. Personal creativity here, is not confined wi
th design creativity, but rather creativity in every sense, creativity in presen
tation, finding jobs, solving details, etc. (fig.2) For design courses, for exam
ple, one of the most difficult task is to decide upon the scale, human dimension
 and factors, basic design elements and principles, environmental control system
s. For example, certain heat level can be appropriate for certain environment of
certain task theoretically, But the effect of size, proportion of the space, th
e material, the color, the texture, the pattern is difficult to calculate from u
ser’s point of view. Even if the necessary information is given in theoretical cou
rses students will understand the situation if they experience it. So in SODAP c
ourses through measuring the body, various elements, experiences different space
s, furniture, they attain the knowledge rather then understand it. Similar to t
hat one can understand the functional appropriateness better, if they will exper
ience it, in real life condition. Application of basic design rules, is always
difficult to understand, by experiencing it, namely seeing in three dimension, d
iscussing it, drawing it make students to have the knowledge. Almost all theor
etical courses find its reflections in SODAP courses. (Fig. 4)
Basically the following activities are held during SODAP courses:
• SEE: The students, as a class, are taken to visit existing, buildings, buildings
under construction, real workshops, nature, etc. to SEE; During visit the site
is evaluated in every aspect, discussion is held, and the students are asked to
write a report for each visit, according to site evaluation criterion.
• OBSERVE: The class with the instruction of the faculty, observe the processes in
volved, observe functional relations, factors affecting the existing situation o
f a building or artifact or a piece of furniture and try to find out and underst
and tangibles and intangibles aspects of architecture.
• DRAW- DESIGN- DISCUSS: During visits students are expected to make interviews, D
ISCUSS with the interviewee, DRAW at the site to make a visual correlation of wh
at they have seen/learn; so that they spend longer time to look deeply as well.
And they are expected to DESIGN an object or something that they can apply their
knowledge.
• ANALYSIS: Sometimes related to a building type, but mostly on an independent sub
ject assigned by the faculty, students are asked to make researches, analyze the
subject of design or problems, write reports, learn how to learn by themselves
. This study usually done as a group work to practice team work and overcome its
problems.
• PRODUCE- PRACTICE-PARTICIPATE: They are expected to design an object or somethin
g that they can apply their attained knowledge in all design and theoretical cou
rses. They are expected to make or have them made in real workshops, if necessar
y in several workshops, present them, therefore PRACTICE the production process
have an experience of multidisciplinary work. In this projects students projects
are expected to be used either by themselves, by family members or real client,
they represent the real designer role, client role sometimes can be undertaken
by either the faculty, or other students, and sometimes family members or real c
lient. (Fig.3)
Thus, it is expected that the students are and will be always conscious and know
ledgeable about the real life situation, feeling the problems mentioned above, i
n A.2. Part of this abstract. ‘SODAP’, workshop courses also make students consciou
s about the difference of school projects and real life projects, so that the st
udents feel free to be more creative and theoretical in their design courses.
Fig.4 . Theoretical courses and ‘SODAP’
Fig.5. First year courses and SODAP
relation
relation
The courses are conducted by a single or group of faculty, but whenever necess
ary, for certain period of time, theoretical support is given, either by the rea
l professional or a specialized faculty. Thus each theoretical course finds its
reflection in ‘SODAP’.
Program is adaptive and flexible according to need; and always surprising for th
e students, and is very active too. This character of the course makes students
attentive to the course willingly:
The program is arranged so that every theoretical course find its reflection in ‘S
ODAP. (Fig 4) Thus economy of time also achieved: For example with only one site
 visit; basic design principles, construction materials, ergonomics, legal appro
val mechanism, standards, and user requirements can be discussed and, each year
the content of the course become more complex. For the first year the theoretica
l courses platforms and SODAP course relation is seen. (Fig 5)
In the following table few examples of course program can be analyzed. By the an
alysis of daily course program applied in 2000-2001-fall semester, one can under
stand the nature of SODAP and its potential flexibility and future.
Table 1 Few Examples Of Some course programs and semester projects Applied in Fa
ll of 2000
SUBJECT AIM WHAT IS DONE? ASSESMENT
Plastic tea cup To see functional appropriateness
To draw /
Visual
Communication
Discussion of the form, quality of material,
Drawing Drawings are graded
Human figure To see-ergonomics
To draw- visual communication and body proportions Dimension of human body
Drawing to see Drawings graded
Visit to a building (METU Fac. Of Arch. To see-basic design elements and princip
les on building, what is architecture, interior architecture
To observe- space organization and function
To draw-V.C. Discussion on basic design elements and principles; materials of
construction; some details
Drawing
Writing a report about the building Drawings and reports are graded
Visit to Ceylan -prime ministry construction site To see- structural and f
inishing materials
To observe – construction work Discussion on, materials, their usage, building
systems, and their vocabulary, different type of building trades, understanding
of finishes Quiz graded
Visit to Ankara Citadel To see- appreciation of historical site, basic design pr
inciples, materials and details
To observe – functional change
To draw – V.C. to see and observe Discussion on historical site, materials, detail
s, building systems, basic design principals, functional change, user needs, un
derstanding of interior works Drawings graded
Project “Change that” To analyze- different materials, function, user needs
To see: different materials and how to handle, detailing
To produce- From an old object creation of new one
To draw-technical drawing Real life production
Discussion on functional change, basic design principles, detailing, ergonomics,
user needs,
Presentation of the project
User evaluation, The object, drawings, verbal presentation, and all grade
d in open jury
Study on a specific building type and evaluation of an example To see: Evaluati
on of a building,
Problems of team work
To analyze: Certain building type, by literature and live research
To produce: A comprehensive report
To observe: User- function relation Analysis in terms of function, bubble di
agrams, activity diagrams, materials, building finishes, furniture, color scheme
, building physics, building systems,
Report writing, analysis drawings, analysis photographs
Of the certain building and its type from books, and comparison Reports, drawing
s, verbal presentation with knowledge of the analyzed building type and how to a
nalyze a building is evaluated, and graded
The Possible Difficulties Confronted During The Application Of SODAP
So far the main difficulties seem:
• Programming the course schedule of the faculty; especially the co-timing of the
program of SODAP to the other theoretical courses.
• For visiting of the buildings the size of the student group; maximum 20 students
seem to be fine for concentration, for bigger groups two or more sessions shoul
d be undertaken,
• Since close communication among faculty is a necessity lack of time for meetings
seem to be a problem for the time being, probably in time with adaptive program
ming this problem can be altered,
Application of the course was a different experience for both the faculty and th
e students. Its dynamic capability makes the course adaptive to difficulties of
finding places. Visiting places should not necessarily be the ideal one, since a
ny building has positive and negative values. The final four-year program has no
t yet settled, with each year’s experience the course is reevaluated and finalized
for the coming semester. To see and evaluate the advantage of the course cannot
be achieved before seeing couple of graduate groups. Only after the degree of s
uccess can be measured.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALLPORT, F.H.; Theorıes Of Perceptıon And And The Concept Of Structure; New york,195
5
ASLANTAMER. O.; “The Congruent And Distinct Points And Defective Parts Of Architec
ture And Interior Architecture”, 2000 (Unpublished Study)
BANDURA, A. “Social Foundations of Thought and Action”: A Social Cognitive Theory. E
ngle wood Cliffs, Prentice Hall: NJ, 1986
CAIRNS, George; WORTHINGTON, John (ed); Perspectives On Archıtectural Educatıon; Ins
tıtute Of Advanced Architectural Studies, The University of YORK, U.K., 1997
EDELMAN, Gerald. “Bright Air, Brilliant Fire”; On the Matter of the Mind. Basic Book
s, 1992
ELLS, Henry; Fundamentals Of Human Learnıng And Cognıtıon; Wm. C. Brown Company Publis
hers, USA, 1972 (LB 1051, E 496)
LANG, John; Creatıng Archıtectural Theory; Van Nostrand Reinhold ; New York,1987
Mimari Tasarım Sorunları Ana Bilim Dalı; Mimari Tasarım Sorunları Ders Notları: 1997-1998;
imar Sinan Üniversitesi, Mimarlık Fakültesi
ONEL,HAKKI Prof.Dr.; Mimarlık Eğitiminde Kalite Ve Yeni Yaklaşımlar; Mimarlık, Ekim, 2000
, No: 295,pp.58-60
PEARCE, M., TOY, M. (ed.) ; Educating Architects, Academy Editions, UK, 1995
PHILLIPS, D.C. & SOLTIS, Jonas F. “Perspectives on Learning”, Chapter 3. Teachers Co
llege Press.
Practıce; Allyn and Baco Inc., USA,1987
RITTEL, H.; “For the Distinction Between deliberated and Off Hand Judgements”; Prıncıple
s For The Desıgn Of An Educatıonal System For Desıgn; In: Education For Architectural
Technology, Berkeley,1966
UNDERWOOD, Geoffrey; Implıcıt Cognıtıon; Oxford Science Publications; Gr.Br. ,1996
VYGOTSKY, L.S. “Thought and Language”. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1962.
VYGOTSKY, L.S. “Mind in Society”. Harvard University Press Cambridge MA, 1978.