Effective Structural Methods and Criteria in Iranian Architectural Education

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D student, Department of Architecture, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad,

2 Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, University of Arts, 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

10.22034/ias.2020.234149.1258

Abstract

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?

Keywords

References

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.
Ayati, M. Khosh Daman, p. (2012). Culture, curriculum and teaching and learning styles. Iranian Curriculum Studies Quarterly, 7 (26), 149-172. [In Persian]
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.
Memarian, H. (2011). New student-centered methods in engineering education. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, 13 (52), 1-21. [In Persian].
Motahari Nejad, H. (2013). The Evolution of Engineering Education in the World and Iran Iranian Engineering Education Quarterly, 15 (58), 1-14. [In Persian]
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.
Sadat Hosseini, L. Flamki, M.M. Hojjat, A. (2019). The role of creative thinking and learning styles in teaching architectural design. Two Quarterly Journal of Architectural Thought, Vol. 1, 125-140. [In Persian]
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.
Islamic Art Studies
Volume 18, Issue 42 - Serial Number 42
February 2021
Pages 135-152

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics