İÇ MİMARLIK EĞİTİMİNDE TEKNİK ÇİZİM VE SANAL GERÇEKLİK ORTAMLARINDA HACİM ALGISI

Abstract

This thesis comparatively examined how interior architecture students perceive interior spatial volume through technical drawing and virtual reality. The study addressed differences in participants’ perceptions of spatial dimensions and volume, evaluations of object-volume and object-object relationships, orientation and circulation, and subjective assessments of learning spatial volume perception. Designed using a mixed-methods approach, the study was conducted with 25 students enrolled in the Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Faculty of Fine Arts, Hacettepe University, who had successfully completed the fundamental technical drawing courses. Participants first examined the same interior space through technical drawings without numerical dimensions and then experienced a full-scale virtual reality model of the same space. Research data were collected through responses to eight open-ended question groups designed for use across the two stages, six general evaluation questions administered after these stages, and finally a six-item 5-point Likert-type questionnaire. Qualitative data were manually coded with the support of Sankey software and analyzed thematically and comparatively; the exact McNemar test was also used to analyze changes in perception occurring during the transition from technical drawing to the virtual reality experience. Quantitative data were evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis, descriptive statistics, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The findings showed that the transition from technical drawing to virtual reality did not change all spatial evaluations in the same direction. The most pronounced changes occurred in the mezzanine/sleeping area, where height perception was particularly salient; the frequency with which this area was evaluated as “narrow” and “low” decreased significantly after the virtual reality experience (p = .039 for both). Of the participants, 92% reported a difference between the approximate dimensional judgments they had formed through technical drawing and their evaluations after the virtual reality experience, while 88% stated that virtual reality facilitated the perception of three-dimensional volume. Significant differences were found in all questionnaire findings concerning the perceived ease of judging dimensions, circulation distances, and overall spatial volume (p < .001). In this context, virtual reality was perceived more positively than technical drawing in relation to the perception of dimensions, distances, and volume. Findings concerning object-volume, object-object, and solid-void relationships indicated that evaluations in technical drawing were based more on judgments of layout, proportion, circulation, and adequacy constructed through plans and sections, whereas in virtual reality the space occupied by furnishings, actual usable clearances, body scale, and movement became more salient perceptual references. Participants’ preferred spatial positions were concentrated mainly around the entrance and general ground-floor viewpoints during the technical drawing stage, while in virtual reality they extended to different locations such as the mezzanine and stair area. Of the participants, 96% stated that being able to move within the virtual environment facilitated spatial perception. In evaluations related to learning, the main difficulties associated with technical drawing were insufficient dimensional references, the need to mentally construct three-dimensional volume from two-dimensional drawings, and limited experiential/bodily references. In virtual reality, direct comprehensibility and bodily experience played a supportive role, whereas adaptation to the technological interface and equipment emerged as the primary challenging condition. Twenty-four participants (96%) reported confidence in their evaluations of spatial volume in the virtual reality environment; this confidence was explained through the ability to test design decisions, use the body and human scale as direct references, evaluate object-volume relationships, and experience the space three-dimensionally. Regarding the learning of spatial volume perception, 76% of the participants preferred virtual reality and 24% preferred the combined use of the two methods; none preferred technical drawing alone. The results indicate that technical drawing retains its fundamental role in abstracting, organizing, and communicating spatial information, while virtual reality can be considered a complementary learning environment that supports technical drawing and the learning of spatial volume perception by enabling this information to be evaluated through a three-dimensional, embodied, and movement-based experience.