روش ها و معیارهای ساختاری تاثیرگذار در آموزش معماری ایران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری ، گروه معماری، واحد نجف آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف آباد، ایران.

2 دانشیار، گروه معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر

3 استادیار ، گروه معماری، واحد نجف آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، نجف آباد، ایران.

4 دانشیار، گروه پژوهش هنر، دانشکده پژوهش های عالی هنر دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

10.22034/ias.2020.234149.1258

چکیده

روش‌های یادگیری، یکی از مباحث مطرح امروزی است که هدف اصلی آن، یافتن راهکارهای جدید برای ارتقای کیفیت آموزشی است. ساختارهای آموزشی ایران در دهه‌های گذشته، تغییرات چندانی نکرده است که یکی از اصلی‌ترین دلایل آن، ناآشنایی اساتید با روش‌های نوین آموزشی است. آموزش معماری ایران  نیز مانند دیگر علوم با مسائل و پیچیدگی­های خاص خود همراه است. برای انجام این پژوهش، با تحلیل استقرایی محتواهای نظری، ابتدا انواع روش‌های آموزشی، بررسی و دسته‌بندی نظری و عملی شده­اند، سپس هر کدام در دو دسته، شامل روش و راهکار کاربردی، الگوسازی شده و چهارچوب‌ محتوای تشکیل‌دهندۀ آن­ها مشخص شده است. در قسمت روش، هدف ما تعیین چهارچوب کلی شکل‌گیری محتوای موضوعی آن از نظر متد آموزشیِ مدنظر است. در گزینۀ فرایند، کاربرد و روند استفاده از آن روش و ابزارهای ممکن در آن روند آموزشی، مشخص شده‌اند. سپس موارد انتخابی بر اساس معیارهای مؤثر در آموزش معماری ایران، با هدف یافتن پتانسیل‌های ممکن برای پژوهش‌های آینده، ارزیابی کیفی تطبیقی شده­اند. درنهایت، پس از تحلیل نظریِ روش‌های آموزشی با معیارهای ساختاری تأثیرگذار در آموزش معماری ایران، پتانسیل‌های بسیاری مشخص شده­اند که در میان آنها روش مبتنی بر حل مسئله، یکی از راهکارهای معتبر معرفی شده است؛ ولی ارزیابی دقیق هر کدام به پژوهش‌های فراتری نیاز دارد.
اهداف پژوهش:
1.بررسی گونه­ها و روش­های  آموزشی و شرایط کاربرد آن­ها.
2.تحلیل روش­های آموزش نظری و عملی و درک چهارچوب­های روش­گرا در معماری.
سؤالات پژوهش:
1.در ساختار نظام آموزشی ایران چه گونه­ها و روش­های آموزشی وجود دارد؟
2.در آموزش معماری در ایران چه روش­ها و ساختارهایی وجود دارد؟

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effective Structural Methods and Criteria in Iranian Architectural Education

نویسندگان [English]

  • Homan Khajeh pour 1
  • Mahmoud Reza Saghafi 2
  • Shahab Kariminia 3
  • Marzieh Piravi vanak 4
1 Ph.D student, Department of Architecture, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad,
2 Associate Professor at Faculty of Architecture & Urbanism, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
4 Associate Professor, Art, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Education methods are one of the most significant topics today, the main purpose of which is to find new solutions to improve the quality of learning. Iran's educational structures have not changed much in recent decades and one of the main reasons is the unfamiliarity of professors with new teaching methods. Iranian architecture education, similar to other sciences, is associated with its own problems and complexities. To conduct this research, via an inductive analysis of theoretical content, primary, various methods of teaching, review and theoretical and practical classification have been done, then each in two categories, including methods and practical solutions, is modeled and the content framework of their constituents is specified. In the method section, our goal is to determine the general framework for the formation of its thematic content in terms of the intended educational method. In the process option, the application and the procedure of using the mentioned method and possible tools in that educational process are specified. In the next step, the selected cases have been comparatively evaluated based on the effective criteria in Iranian architectural education, with the aim of finding possible potentials for future research. Finally, after the theoretical analysis of educational methods with effective structural criteria many potentials have been identified, among which the problem-based method is one of the valid solutions; however, an accurate evaluation of each category requires further research.
Research aims:

Examining the types and methods of education and the conditions of their use.
Analysis of theoretical and practical teaching methods and understanding of methodological frameworks in architecture.

Research questions:

What are the types and methods of education in the structure of Iran's educational system?
What methods and structures are applied in teaching architecture in Iran?

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Architectural education
  • structural methods and criteria
  • practical and theoretical education
 السادات حسینی، ل. فلامکی، م.م. حجت، ع. (1398).  نقش تفکر خلاق و سبک­های یادگیری در آموزش طراحی معماری. دو فصلنامه اندیشه معماری، ش1، 125-140.
 آیتی، م. خوش دامن, ص. (1391).  فرهنگ، برنامه درسی و سبک‌های تدریس و یادگیری. فصلنامه مطالعات برنامه درسی ایران، 7(26)، 149-172.
مطهری‌نژاد, ح. (1392). روند تکامل آموزش مهندسی در جهان و ایران فصلنامه آموزش مهندسی ایران, 15(58), 1-14.
 معماریان, ح. (1390). روش‌های نوین دانشجو محور در آموزش مهندسی. فصلنامه آموزش مهندسی ایران, 13(52), 1-21.
Akinsanya, P. (2014). Dewey’s Pragmatic Education: An Eclectic Philosophy of Note. Education Practice and Innovation, 1(1), 13-16.
Ashkan, M. (2016). The Phenomenological Evaluation of Teaching Professionalism in The Architecture Design Studio Culture: A Case at the University of Kansas. International Journal of Architectural Research, 10(1), 41-61.
Balachandran, T. (2011). Factors Influencing the Perceptual Teaching Styles of Teacher Candidates in Math Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.
Barrett, T. (2017). New Model of Problem-based learning: Inspiring Concepts, Practice Strategies and Case Studies from Higher Education: Maynooth: AISHE.
Bose, M. (2007). Design Studio: A Site for Critical Inquiry. In A. M. Salama, and N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future (pp. 131-141). Gateshead, UK: The Urban International Press.
Callander, S. (2011). Searching and Learning by Trial and Error. American Economic Review, 10(1), 2277–2308.
Cheng, M. M. H., Cheng, A. Y. N., & Tang, S. Y. F. (2010). Closing the gap between the theory and practice of teaching: implications for teacher education programmes in Hong Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 36(1), 91-104.
Choi, H. H., & Kim, M. J. (2016). The Potential of Reasoning Methods as A Teaching Strategy Supporting Students’ Creative Thinking in Architectural Design. International Journal of Architectural Research, 10(3), 6-20.
Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cole, J. (1981), Selecting Extension Teaching Method, Journal Of Extension.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Qualitative Research Designs. In V. Knight (Ed.), Research Designs (Fourth ed.). United states of America: Sage Publication.
Dall’alba, G. (2005). Improving teaching: Enhancing ways of being university teachers. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(4), 361-372.
Friedman, D. B., Crews,T. B., Caicedo,J. M., Besley,J. C.,Weinberg,J., &Freeman, M. L. (2010).An exploration into inquiry-based learning by a multidisciplinary group of higher education faculty. Higher Education, 59, 765–783.
Gallagher, C. (2012). The Trouble with Outcomes: Pragmatic Inquiry and Educational Aims. College English, 75(1), 19.
Gick, M. L. (1986). Problem-Solving Strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21(1-2), 99-120.
Henriksson, C. (2012). Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Pedagogical Practice. In N. Friesen, C. Henriksson, & T. Saevi (Eds.), Hermeneutic Phenomenology In Education. Boston: Sense Publishers.
Hunt, A. (2008). Pragmatic Thinking and Learning. USA: The Pragmatic Bookshelf.
Jackson, I. (2008). Gestalt – A Learning Theory for Graphic Design Education. JADE, 27(1), 63-69.
Kaufman, D. M. (2003). Applying educational theory in practice. BMJ, 326, 213-216.
Khalifa, F. A. (2017). Autonomy in Architectural Education: A Bahraini Perspective. International Journal of Architectural Research, 11(2), 24-33.
Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Cognitive load theory: implications of cognitive load theory on the design of learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 1-10.
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). New York: Cambridge.
Krupinska, J. (2014). What an architecture student should know. New York, USA: Routledge.
Küpers, W. (2011). Embodied Pheno-Pragma-Practice – Phenomenological and Pragmatic Perspectives on Creative “Inter-practice” in Organisations between Habits and Improvisation. Phenomenology & Practice, 5(1), 100-139.
Lamancusa, J. S. (2006). Design as the Bridge Between Theory and Practice. Int. J. Engng Ed., 22(3), 652-658.
Lofthouse, N. (2013). The Changing Nature of Architectural Education Do Live Projects prepare students for the realities of architectural practice? (MA degree), Oxford Brookes University.  
Larkin, M., & Thompson, A. R. (2012). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis in Mental Health and Psychotherapy Research. In A. Thompson & D. Harper (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: a guide for students and practitioners (pp. 99-116). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Manen, M. v. (2007). Phenomenology of Practice. Phenomenology & Practice, 1(1), 11-30.
Masdéu, M., & Fuses, J. (2017). Reconceptualizing The Design Studio in Architectural Education: Distance Learning and Blended Learning as Transformation Factors. International Journal of Architectural Research, 11(2), 06-23. 
McIntyre, D. (2006). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(3), 357-382.
Nabih, H. E. (2010). Process-Based Learning: Towards Theoretical and Lecture-Based Coursework in Studio Style. International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2-3), 91-106.
Nesbitt, K. ed. (1996). Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: an anthology of architectural theory. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Palmer, M., Larkin, M., De Visser, R. & Fadden, G. (2010). Developing an interpretative phenomenological approach to focus group data. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7, 99–121.
Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., & Jong, T. d. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47-61.
Pugnale, A., & Parigi, D. (2012). Approaching Technical Issues in Architectural Education. Aalborg University, 8.
Salama, A. M. (2008). A Theory for Integrating Knowledge in Architectural Design Education. International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), 29.
Salama, A. M. (2010). Delivering Theory Courses in Architecture: Inquiry Based, Active, and Experiential Learning Integrated. International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2-3), 278-295.
Salama, A. M. (2013). Seeking Responsive Forms of Pedagogy in Architectural Education. Field Journal, 5(1), 9-30.
Sirowy, B. (2010). Phenomenological Concepts in Architecture, Towards a User-Oriented Practice. (Dissertation).
Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, research, practice. London: Sage.
Squire, L. R., & Frambach, M. (1990). Cognitive skill learning in amnesia. Psychobiology, 18(1), 109-117.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research On Project-Based Learning. Retrieved from San Rafael, California.
Wang, T. (2010). A New Paradigm for Design Studio Education. JADE, 29(2), 173-183.