Rethinking the Pedagogical Fiction of the Architectural Design Studio The "Becomings of House" as an Experimental Fiction

In line with the changing definitions and boundaries of architecture and the changing roles and professional description of the architect, the need to question and explore the contexts, contents, methods, techniques and tools of architectural design education is always on the agenda. The pedagogical fiction of the architectural studio is treated as a noteworthy issue that is effective in educating architects and shaping architecture. It is a matter of discussion about what the training in the studio should cover and how the content should be processed. This study, developed with an experimental approach to design, questions the architectural design studio's fiction of content and method to rethink its pedagogical coverage and processing. To materialize the discussion on the studio pedagogy, "house" as a design content and "designing in becoming" as a design method are proposed. "House" is re-conceptualized as a basic spatial structure for designing space in terms of its openness to derivation and reproduction. "Designing in becoming" is conceptualized as an experimental design method that creates instability and constructs a field of experimentation at the level of both subject and object. Accordingly, "Becomings of House" is proposed as an experimental design studio fiction through which the conceptualized content and method can be applied together. Based on the conceptualizations made in the study, the pedagogical opportunities and limitations of the proposed fiction are examined. A discussion on the pedagogy of architectural design studios towards experimental design approach is set up.


Introduction
The design studio is seen as a dynamic educational field where diverse understandings of what architecture is, who the architect is and what he/she does can be constructed. Accordingly, the pedagogical fiction of the architectural design studio is considered one of the main research topics in architecture. When inquiring into the pedagogical fictions of architectural design studio education, the definition of architecture, the role of the architect, the boundaries of the profession also become topics of discussion (Broadbent, 1973;Salama, 1995). In line with changing definitions, roles and boundaries, the need to question and explore the contexts, content, methods, techniques and tools of architectural design education comes to the fore. It is argued that experimenting and sharing different pedagogical fictions of design studios towards different approaches creates a versatile knowledge structure for understanding and discussing the profession of architecture and the professional roles of the architect (Salama, 1995:p.148). In this context, this study presents research into a pedagogical fiction that allows the construction of both the architect and the architectural object in the architectural design studio in line with the experimental design approach.
In describing the field of architectural design, the relationships that architecture establishes with different disciplines, everyday life and social contexts, as well as the relationship between its theoretical and practical fields of action, become the subject of discussion. The discussion on the structure of the field reveals that, according to different approaches, strictly separated autonomous structures or permeable or even diffuse structures can be depicted (Yılmaz, 2018:pp.1-11). By compressing architectural design into theoretical or practical fields with defined boundaries, the development of senses and tools for spatial design becomes a self-referential vicious circle. On the other hand, if the necessary critical distance cannot be maintained, activities aimed at understanding and producing space in the multiplicity of references of everyday life run the risk of falling under the influence of general acceptances or dominant tendencies. From this point of view, it can be argued that architecture needs to create a field of action in which it can look at itself from the outside without being drawn into defined boundaries and getting lost in chaotic relations across borders. In this sense, this study is part of a series of investigations exploring the possibilities of structuring the architectural design studio in such a way as to allow for the construction of a field of action that makes it possible to look at everything that makes up life from the outside.
In exploring how the studio can be transformed into a field of action in which the designer can simultaneously construct both himself and the design object, and view both himself and architecture from the outside, a rethinking of its pedagogical fiction in terms of content and methodology provides a basis for discussion. From this perspective, this study develops a fiction of content and method intended to extend the studio's field of action to the periphery 1 of architecture. Accordingly, in the first part of the three-part study, the concept of "house" structuring the studio content is reconsidered and reconceptualized as a basic spatial structure in terms of its potential for spatial derivation and reproduction beyond its established spatial codes. In the second part, the concept of "being in becoming" is explained in order to describe the studio's fiction of method. In this context, "designing in becoming" is conceptualized as an experimental design method that creates instability at the level of both the designer subject and the design object. In the third part, the possibilities of using the content and the method raised in the study together in the studio and the cases of their implementation are discussed, and their effects on each other are questioned. Accordingly, "Becomings of House" is proposed as an experimental design studio fiction to open the studio outside itself. Finally, in light of the conceptualizations and discussions, 1 The problem of the relationship between the centre and the periphery in architecture and the case of the positioning of design activity in the periphery is discussed in the study entitled "Architectural Design Education Discourses 2: Integration". Experimental processes are claimed to be positioned in the periphery because of the dispersed, unstable field of information it constitutes (Aksu et al., 2011). the pedagogical opportunities and limitations of the proposed pedagogical fiction are presented, and a discussion on the pedagogy of architectural design studios is set up.
2 "House" as a basic spatial structure and its design potentials Space permeates us as an entity that we talk about, have an opinion about, and take an attitude towards in one way or another. All the theories and perspectives produced about the existence of space may have penetrated the understanding of "average ambiguous existence". In Heidegger's (2008) words, to determine an existing thing in its being, it is not necessary to have a readymade and clear concept or definition of the meaning of that thing beforehand. Nevertheless, the ready-made concepts that help to question the elements that make up space and reveal their semantic determinations allow the ground to be laid for the study and research of space. With this understanding, this study uses the concept of "house" to question the production of space through a basic spatial structure. It evaluates "house" as an instrumental content framework establishing the research ground. It discusses the concept in terms of its potential for spatial derivation and presents research on its use in the educational content of architectural design.
It is noted that the English concept of "house" comes from the Old English "hus", meaning "dwelling, shelter, building designed to be used as a residence", and that the concept is related to the root of the word "hide". The concept's potential to serve as an extended framework to include a family, a group of people, a community or a style is explained (Skeat, 2005:p.279). As such, the concept of "house" connotes involvement in a defined, enclosing field. As an architectural concept, it evokes a domestic situation in the context of space. However, it can potentially be a tool for bringing the need for shelter, the most basic human right to life, into society's knowledge, self, identity and agenda. Additionally, the content of the concept of "house" carries collective extensions that cannot be limited to housing. Although "house" is interpreted as the spatial equivalent of the individual right to life, it also has the potential to create a spatial description of all the collective activities that make up life. In this sense, deriving from the concept of "house", the concept of "household", which means "members of a family (including servants) collectively", and "furniture and articles belonging to a house", sheds light on the potential of the concept.
In this way, it becomes more apparent that the concept of "house" has significant potential to refer to a spatial situation that frames communities, shared activities and the collectivity of objects. Wilk and Rathje (1982:p.618) discuss the concept of "household", defining it in the context of "social groups articulate directly with economic and ecological processes" and explaining it through three basic components, social (social members, relationships between members), material (activity areas, activity objects) and behavioral (activities). Following this, the concept of "household" is seen as a more complex concept that has implications beyond expressing a community of people in a singular place. There are examples of social groups living in the same unit, which may or may not cooperate economically or extend their daily activities to other units. In this sense, "household" is seen as a potential framework for understanding the units that make up a settlement and relationships within a settlement (Özdemir and Özdemir, 2019:pp.28-30,46).
The Iroquois house, one of the earliest examples of household use with all spatial uses under one roof, is a model for discussing the individual and collective extensions of "house" (Fig. 1). It is also called the long house of the tribe. And the tribe calls itself "Hodenosaunee", which means "people of the long house". So, they define themselves by the space they live in. It was built as an integrated place where all the tribes lived under the same roof, and all kinds of social production took place. In addition to the housing needs of the tribe members, the activities of daily life could also be created within a single structure. (Cohen, 2009:p.12). In this sense, the Iroquois house has an operational scope that goes beyond the domestic content of the house. In this respect, it constitutes an example that allows the house to be understood as a spatial framework capable of evolving to include different activities beyond its semantic and spatial content based on housing. At the same time, it can be used as an image describing the self and its life activities, providing a content framework for both the subject and the object.
The concept of "house" can potentially construct new content through articulation with other concepts. 2 It currently designates many different kinds of spaces, such as beer house, fish house, public house, fashion house, meeting house, prison house, etc. It creates a system of spaces that diversifies according to the subject, object or action codes with which it is combined. On the other hand, it also allows contextual, programmatic and structurally unconventional spatial contents such as action house, thinking house, figure house, poem house, etc. and creates new social and cultural codes. As can be seen, the "house", when derived with different contents, can evolve into all kinds of spatial structures that make up the built environment.
The development of the "house" as spatial design content for a design studio opens up a productive design and research field thanks to its open structure for derivation and reproduction. It creates a basic spatial structure that the designers in the studio can shape according to their spatial quest. However, in order to assess the productivity of this basic spatial structure, it is necessary to destabilize 2 In Turkish, there are concepts such as "ev", "konut", "hane" which have close meanings to "house". However, among these, the concept of "hane" has the same potential as the concept of "house" in expressing different types of spaces through articulation with other concepts. The Turkish concept of "hane", comes from the word "χāne", which is derived from the Persian "χānag", meaning "home". However, in addition to "house, household, dwelling", it also means "digit in Arabic numerals" (Eyüboğlu, 2017). It is also used to mean "parts of a whole". Furthermore, when used to form a compound word, it carries connotations of "building, structure, place, office" (TDK, 1945). Thus, its ability to produce spatial derivatives that form a whole together can also be rethought. In this sense, while this study re-examines the concept of "house" in the context of spatial design to make sense of the concept, it also considers the spatial situations and derivatives that the concept of "hane" expresses and interprets on its potential to create a whole. Fig. 1 The Iroquois house adapted from Cohen (2009) it to think about it beyond its dominant domestic content. 3 The destabilization of the "house" provides the necessary space to dissolve its established spatial contents and derivation or reproduction through new connections. In this sense, this study explores how the concept of the "house" can be destabilized and reconstructed to create new spatial design content. In doing so, it interrogates the potential of "house" as a spatial becoming that can evolve into different kinds of spaces.
3 "Designing in becoming" as an experimental design method "Designing in becoming" means to realize the act of designing by hanging in, enduring within becoming. To understand such a way of taking action, it is necessary to explain what kind of state of being "becoming" expresses.

"Becoming"
Whether it is the designer, the user or the society, to create space, it is necessary to "never oscillate at idle, but be constantly in a becoming". Hanging in "becoming" creates a different state of cognition in which one can discover oneself and one's surroundings. According to Heidegger (2008), "being in becoming" doesn't mean being present and momentary. It is based on probability. It is mainly about the future. On the other hand, it is also possible to create memory and remembrance by avoiding the present (Heidegger, 2008:pp.25,26). Because in the present, the person or society cannot grasp any particular possibility due to memory loss. The power of forgetting lies in living simply, in "letting things be" as they are, in a forgetful surrender to swim upstream. With this understanding, Deleuze and Guattari (1996) explain "becoming" as a detachment from ordinary time. For them, "becoming" does not belong to history. On the contrary, as it is understood in terms of "the whole of the conditions that are turned away to create something new". For them, becoming without history remains indeterminate and unconditioned. On the other hand, becoming is not historical either. Regarding Friedrich Nietzsche, Deleuze and Guattari (1996) define "becoming" as an "unhistorical element". In describing the "unhistorical", they mention that Nietzsche uses the phrase "is like an atmosphere within which alone life can germinate and with the deconstruction it must vanish" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1996). In this sense, "being in becoming" can be expressed as being in a spatiotemporally expanded, deferred interval.
The interval allows for hanging in "becoming" temporally and spatially, creating a context for situating acting in becoming. It can be metaphorized as a diffuse mist that seems to disappear at any moment. It can be imagined as a spatiotemporally constituted being in which nothing is fixed but things dynamically evolve into each other. The interval builds up resistance 4 by creating a break in the ordinary flow of the solidified reality lived in. Thanks to its resistance, it offers a field of action in which established connections of things are dissolved and destabilized to establish new connections. It also opens a field of experimentation in which things can be found in becoming. While hanging in "becoming", the person situates himself within an interval. Such a situation can be understood as a mental and embodimental expansion that destabilizes the existing and makes it possible to imagine something beyond, capable of spreading from the time and space of a given point to all possible times and spaces.
Deleuze's (2008) explanations of the actual and the virtual provide a conceptual framework for understanding and discussing the mental and embodimental expansion created by "becoming". According to him, the objects that create life are not fully actual. Everything actual is surrounded by circles of virtuality that take shape at different levels. On the other hand, the virtual refers to an unstable formation whose creation and destruction take place in a shorter time than any conceivable continuous time. In this sense, the actual is surrounded by constantly changing and deepening virtualities. The virtual image circles surrounding the actual object establish the plane of immanence in which the actual object is also dissolved (Deleuze and Parnet, 2007). Here, "becoming" is about being able to exist on the plane of immanence. This plane is a field where things or those with the potential to become things can be found scattered and open to interaction by being released from their established bonds. While hanging in becoming, 4 Deleuze and Guattari (1996) define "becoming" in terms of creating a zone of change in the cycle of deterritorialization and reterritorialisation.
They say it's about self-positioning by creating a resistance in the present time. They argue that an intense and timeless "becoming" is revolutionary because of the resistance it creates (Deleuze and Guattari, 1996). the person creates an expanding interval from the existing plane of reality to the plane of immanence and situates himself in it. As the person is self-situated in this interval where the virtual image and the actual object interact with each other in cycles, the established elements on the existing plane of reality are dissolved by the destabilization of the bonds that hold them together and are activated by the connections that are being established over and over again. Therefore, while in the cycles of virtualization and actualization, the person can hold himself and what he is creating in a state of "indecisive" or "ambiguous" being. This destabilizes both the subject and the object.

"Designing in becoming"
In examining the design processes, Schön (1983) mentions that the design activity is shaped by the cycles of reflection in action. He explains that while the problem is posed and possible solutions are explored through design, any action taken on the problematic situation reshapes it. Taking new actions by reflecting on the effects of the action on the problematic situation activates the elements and the conditions that create the situation. And the problematic situation is resolved and restructured depending on the extent and effectiveness of the "reflection in action" cycles carried out in this way (Schön, 1983). On the other hand, Ylirisku and Falin's (2008) conceptualization of "knowing in situated action", which they developed with reference to Nigel Cross's conceptualization of "designerly knowing", provides a perspective that allows for a contextual consideration of Schön's (1983) "reflection in action" cycle. They describe the state of self-situating in terms of the designer's relationship to the design problem. They explain that architectural design activity creates embodied knowledge specific to architecture by affecting all the material and non-material conditions of the physical situation. This knowledge is closely related to how the designer situates her/himself within the problem field by constructing his/ her design problem. They emphasize the situated and ongoing interrelationships of the design activity through which embodied knowledge emerges (Ylirisku and Falin, 2008). At this point, it is seen that the processing cycle and the situating of the design activity are decisive in shaping the activity. In this sense, since "designing in becoming" proposes the realization of design activity in a state of being in a temporally expanded, deferred interval, it brings forward a methodological framework for rethinking both the processing and the situating of the activity.
As Pérez-Gómez (1987) has noted, the act of designing provides embodied knowledge based on insight into what is being conceived. In this sense, the design activity which takes place through reflection in action can be understood as a matter of cognition and invention that produces embodied knowledge. It creates a unity of sense and expression that shape each other. The quality of this unity is related to the context of the design activity, in other words, to its situation. It is possible to explain the situating of design activity in terms of "design space". Boudon (2003) conceptualizes design and design space as two different levels. He mentions that when the design regresses to the design space that constitutes itself, it reaches a field of knowledge that transcends itself. It is described as a transcendental formation that carries the possibility of the creation of many other architectural spaces (Boudon, 2003:pp.15-17). It is explained that this formation is shaped by the contextual, instrumental and relational patterns that establish the design activity. It is stated that the design space produced within the complex networks established between the designer subject and the design object has a temporal, spatial and informational prevalence. It is a common being that includes the unexpressed implicit content and the integrity of the verbal, visual and material expressions produced within the design activity (Yılmaz, 2018:pp.122-142). This common being, the design space, is the field of action of forming the aforementioned embodied knowledge, where the design act is situated. From this point of view, how the design activity is situated is directly related to how the design space is formed.
In explaining hanging in "becoming", it was mentioned that the person situates him/herself in an interval that destabilizes him/herself and what he/she is dealing with, creating a mental and embodimental expansion. In order to understand how design space is constructed as situated at the level of immanence, where things exist as "multiplicities", it is essential to clarify further what "multiplicity" means. It is a philosophical concept developed by Edmund Husserl (1969) and Henri Bergson (1910) with reference to Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann. "Multiplicity" is prominent in the philosophy of Deleuze's (1991) work and Deleuze and Guattari's (1996;2004) works, where "multiplicity" is defined as a complex structure that does not refer to an antecedent unity but a density that cannot be grasped as a fragmented whole. It is expressed in constant movement and change. It is conceptualized in the context of cycles of virtualization and actualization. In this sense, it is mentioned that there are multiplicities at different levels as virtual multiplicities and actual multiplicities. Thus, it is stated that "multiplicity" can be conceived as a combination of potentials that potentially contain many becomings (Deleuze, 1991:pp.77-91;Roffe, 2010:pp.180-182). It is explained that the actualization of multiplicities, in other words, the set of actual multiplicities, occurs through connections in assemblages, and these connections can be changed or reconstructed. That's why it is said to produce dynamic formations as opposed to solidified networks of relations (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004:pp.25-28;Deleuze and Parnet, 2007:pp.2-11). As can be understood in the light of these expressions, it is necessary to reconsider the assemblage of multiplicities in the context of design activity to explain the construction of design space as situated in the plane of immanence. Treating the cycles of reflection and action in design activity in the context of virtualization and actualization cycles provides a reference on the subject.
The cycles of virtualization and actualization express the processes of deconstruction and reconstruction of connections between multiplicities. These cycles, which prevent solidification, are based on creation in assemblages by building connections, and their dynamism opens up a field of action for the creation of things. In this sense, a design activity that provides the continuity of the dissolution of things, the recognition of them as multiplicities and the invention of them open to dissolution through the temporary connections allows the construction of design space in a way that opens a wide field of action. It is possible to consider "designing in becoming" in the context of constructing connections as a playful activity shaped by spontaneous formations and as an improvisation. While designing in becoming, the design space is also constructed recursively through the diptych connections that develop in improvisation. These connections are built repeatedly in instantaneous interaction, layered and constantly reproduced. In this way, the design space is destabilized and becomes a synergistic being.
Both the design subject and the design objects become unstable in the design space constructed in becoming. With this understanding, "design in becoming" is defined as a design method in which a designer subject, situated in multiplicity and prone to destabilization, constantly actualizes him/herself and again the destabilized design object. This definition changes the concepts of both the designer subject and the design object. The design object is designed in the process of becoming; it ceases to be a built object that is finished, completed, and determined in all aspects. Instead, it exists through an actuality that carries the uncertainties of being invented and the contradictory nature of not being accepted, triggering different reflections. If the designer subject designs in becoming, it gives him/her the courage to go beyond the established structures and the ability to invent within a destabilization that allows him/her to re-establish him/herself. While designing the design object, the designer subject re-creates both the object and him/herself in becoming. This can be expressed as a communion between the design object and the designer subject. From this point of view, "designing in becoming" refers to a dynamic process in which the design activity functions as a destabilizing intervention method and the designer subject and the design object are constantly being reconstructed, being open to destabilization under the influence of design interventions.

"Becomings of house" as experimental design studio fiction
Although using the content of "house" and the method of "designing in becoming" separately in the studio could be discussed and experienced differently, this study examines the possibilities of using them together. Accordingly, "Becomings of House" is proposed as an experimental design studio fiction. It brings forward a way of training based on experimentation. This type of pedagogical fiction, on the one hand, provides a framework for questioning the very nature of space through the handling of a basic spatial structure such as the "house". The potential to derive the content of the "house" allows for the investigation of the elements that make up the space in the context of the system of spaces of different scales, ranging from architectural to urban space. This extensible nature of the content enables versatile training that considers it in various problematic contexts. On the other hand, by constructing the design space as a field of experimentation, the method allows for continuous deconstruction, construction and re-construction processes. During spatial design experiments, a kind of training in which the designer can reconstruct both the design object and him/ herself, depending on the designer's ability to dissolve, create multiplicities and establish connections, becomes possible. In this sense, the content of the "house" creates an extensive framework that allows the experimental operation of the method of "designing in becoming". Whereas the method of "designing in becoming" enables a creative design activity to reconstruct the content of the "house" beyond familiar conceptions and structures. From this point of view, it is seen that the content and the method can complement and support each other in their formation and functioning. Both support an open and interpretable process allowing dynamic connections between data. Correspondingly, the use of both as a whole in forming the pedagogical fiction of the studio provides a notable opening in the context of design studio education in terms of teaching/learning/experimenting, the creation of space and the creative nature of the design.
With this understanding, atelierz 5 has conducted a series of studios entitled "Fish Swimming Against the Current: Becomings of House" 6 . Throughout the series, the spatial systems shaped by the dominant social, cultural and societal codes that give life to the city have been problematized. The studio has pursued a quest that goes beyond the spaces shaped by the life practices that the established systems bring with them, accept or impose. It has investigated the design of spatial structures that allow for the realization of suppressed, blocked or ignored practices. In the studio works, the whole city of Ankara is determined as a contextual framework. Questioning the existing arrangements of the city, not adhering to the constraints of the infrastructure system that constitute the city, dealing with flows that are incompatible with established circulation networks or ruptures within flows, designing interventions that activate the potential of undefined spaces that are stuck between the spatial arrangements that make up the city have been encouraged.
In the studio process, it was intended to transform urban spaces through spatial fiction created by 5 One of the seven vertical design studios at Gazi University Faculty of Architecture, Department of Architecture, atelierz is a studio that adopts an experimental approach to architectural design education. deriving and reproducing the instrumental spatial structure of the "house" in interaction with other spatial content. Dissolving the existing contextual, programmatic and structural codes of the addressed urban space and creating new codes by reconnecting dissolved urban codes with the code of "house" were asked. In this direction, two types of design approaches emerged in the studio. In the first approach, the spatial structures existing in the literature, such as madhouse, jailhouse, workhouse, rooming house, book house, house of god, training house were recreated. In the second approach, spatial structures that do not exist in the literature, such as action house, transformation house, circity house, heterotopic houses were created. In both design approaches, the contextual, programmatic and structural content was reconstructed, questioning the existing spatial arrangement in the urban space addressed.
In the design process, the designers were encouraged to reconstruct themselves, the city where they lived and the design object in communion with each other. To be in the process of becoming, it was recommended that the designer create a multiplicity of data about the city and the object, in which continuous connections are constructed and reconstructed. To comprehend all this multiplicity and to be able to invent by dissolving and re-establishing connections, it has been suggested that designers open up space for themselves through design. The potential of the design space to create a field of resistance that allows for experimentation was discussed. Students were guided to construct design space in a way that would allow experimentation. With this understanding, designers were asked to make their data connections transferable through verbal, visual and material expressions to integrate their research, thinking and building activities. They were supported to externalize the implicit aspects of design. Throughout the process, creating the spatial content and designing material expression as intertwined and simultaneous processes were appreciated and supported .
In the formation of studio content: • treating the "house" as a basic spatial structure and formulating the design problem as a spatial design derived from the basic code of the "house" in accordance with its individual and collective action, • giving the students the responsibility of choosing the problematic design area in the context of the city of Ankara and defining the problem, have provided openness for the creation of individualized design contents. In the application of the method in the studio: • supporting the collection of all kinds of data without being subject to any hierarchy, suppression, separation or marginalization, regardless of disciplinary or academic boundaries, • explaining the use of design as a tool to establish consistency through connections in order to act in the uncertainty created by the multiplicity of data, • promoting the interactive and simultaneous development of researching, thinking and building processes in design, • increasing the interaction of designers with each other as well as with the design space, have created an orientation that allows the multiplication, externalization and integration of the connection networks established in the design processes.
The studio work experimented at atelierz creates a practice-oriented opening in transforming the content and method covered in the study into pedagogical fiction.

Conclusion
This study, which explores the possibilities of structuring the architectural design studio as a field of action in which the designer can simultaneously construct himself and the design object, and look at himself and architecture from the outside, examines the pedagogic fiction of the studio in terms of its content and method. Although the scope of research that can be conducted on the issue is very broad, specific fictions of content and method have been focused on to frame the discussion. Research organized around the concept of "house" for the fiction of content and the concept of "designing in becoming" for the fiction of method has been produced to open up a field of cognition and experimentation for the constructing and the situating of the design space during the design studio process.
The "house", which describes a basic spatial structure, has been handled in terms of its structure open to derivation and reproduction beyond its established spatial content. It has been reconceptualized as an instrumental spatial structure that designers can shape according to their spatial quests in the design studio.
"Designing in becoming" has been discussed in the context of the destabilizing nature of design activity. It has been presented as an experimental design method. It is conceptualized as designing through assembling multiplicities by establishing the integrity of cognitive and inventive actions in a mental and embodimental expansion. It is also discussed in terms of the destabilization it creates at the levels of both the design object and the designer subject.
The educational opportunities and limitations that the fictions provide for the designers in the studio are defined in the light of the knowledge gained from the experience of the content and method fiction developed in the experimental studio structuring of atelierz.
Educational opportunities are defined such as: • discovering the learning opportunities provided by looking from the outside by distancing from the problematic design context, • having the experience of creating differentiation and originality by experimenting, interacting and learning from each other while structuring the design content and producing unique design expressions, • gaining an insight into how all kinds of life-creating data can work towards posing the design problem and structuring the design content, • raising awareness on the personal use of architectural expression tools and on experimenting with tools of different disciplines that are not used in architecture, • practicing ensuring the integrity of researching, thinking and building processes throughout the design activity, • developing an understanding of constructing the self with the design object together throughout the design activity.
Educational limitations are defined such as: • having far differentiating levels of intellectual competence that cannot be balanced within the duration of the studio, • struggling to feed design activity with rich content and lack of using the content provided to support the studio, • forming conservative resistance to destabilizing design interventions, • having a lack of experience in developing the ability to cope with the uncertainty created by destabilizing design interventions.
In line with the conceptualizations presented in the study and the experience of atelierz, the study's findings create a specialized knowledge structure thanks to its integration of intellectual and experiential content. This knowledge structure, developed for architectural design studios, creates a pedagogical fiction that supports the experimental approach, which works with dispersed knowledge in the periphery, rather than the traditional approach, which works with established knowledge in the centre. Although the content and method presented by the study can be applied independently, their use together in the context of design education constitutes a remarkable opening in terms of nurturing and triggering each other's creative potential. Although the proposed pedagogical fiction expands the studio context, it also increases interaction possibilities and allows individual or group-specific paths to be drawn. The uncertainty it brings along with the open structure of the fiction contains the risks of disintegration or inability to progress. However, despite the risks it entails, it presents an open field of training in which those who learn and teach architecture can move.