Defining the problem for a design process is the key element before every project. In basic design education of most architecture faculty departments, problem definitions and guidelines are set by the lecturers. Freshmen are expected to design with respect to these guidelines. However, the instructors lead the class with an abstract problem definition which is not familiar to most participant who are new to the design field. Therefore, the sensibility of keywords and their differentiation, used in assignment sheets and course syllabus are important as well as the critics during the study.

In the case, Interior Architecture Department freshmen constituted the sample who were succeeded in a skill oriented (university based) local examination, while the City and Regional Planning Department freshmen, who were succeeded in a maths and science oriented, nationwide examination. The first year classes of all faculty departments have a common education agenda and in the case study the departments of Interior Architecture and City and Regional Planning are having joint studios. In this study, assignment sheets and project outputs (collected with moodle service) were compared in different semesters of Basic Design 101 and 102 classes of Architecture Faculty of Çankaya University. In addition, freshmen coming from different elimination backgrounds were also compared. The analyses were made to understand the relation of the keywords in the assignment sheets and the success/failure rates, evaluation criteria, final grading comparison, individual student skills.

Results showed that, as the words to describe a problem become more abstract, the variety of products spread in a wider spectrum with lower grades, however, a more limited project definition and concrete guiding results in a more higher grades with lower variety of design approaches.

Keyword: Basic Design, Education, Problem Abstraction