فصلنامه علمی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری مهندسی معماری دانشگاه شهید رجائی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشکده مهندسی معماری و شهرسازی دانشگاه شهید رجائی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

آموزش معماری از موضوعات مهم در جریان رشد معماری است. یکی از ارکان مهم آموزش، ارزیابی است. ارزیابی، رایج‌ترین روش بازخورد در معماری است. در تحقیقاتی که در مورد ارزیابی انجام شده، توجه کمی به احساس و دریافت دانشجویان از فرایند ارزیابی شده است، در‌حالیکه به عنوان یکی از بزرگترین نارضایتی‌های دانشجویان شناخته شده است. هدف از این تحقیق، درک نظرات دانشجویان از روش‌های رایج ارزیابی است تا ضمن بررسی روش‌های سنجش توان طراحی دانشجویان، ارزیابی طرح و فرآیند، به شیوه‌ای جهت قضاوت پروژه‌های معماری در جهت ارتقای کیفیت داوری و آموزش در این رشته بپردازد و الگویی را در خصوص روش صحیح سنجش و داوری مبتنی بر اهداف و فرآیند طراحی، با اتکای بر معیارهایی که بر اساس اهداف آموزشی است، ارائه دهد. نمونه‌های این تحقیق، 40 نفر از دانشجویان مقطع کارشناسی و کارشناسی ارشد دانشکده معماری دانشگاه سوره، به روش نمونه‌گیری خوشه‌ای، به صورت گروه‌های تمرکز است و از متخصصین برای وزن‌دهی به معیارها، به روش AHP استفاده شده است. درنهایت 5 معیار اصلی برای ارزیابی ارائه شد، از بین آنها توضیح انتقادی با وزن 38% از اهمیت بیشتری برخوردار است، بعد از آن توسعه ایده منتخب با 21%، کانسپت و راه حل طراحی، با 17% و 14% و در نهایت طرح نهایی با 10% کمترین اهمیت را از بین پنج معیار به خود اختصاص می‌دهد.

چکیده تصویری

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Proposing a criteria-based assessment pattern for architectural design studios

نویسندگان [English]

  • S. Rezaei Ashtiani 1
  • J. MahdiNejad 2

1 Phd Candidate in Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanization, Shahid Rajaee University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Arcitecture Department, Faculty of Architecture and Urbanization, Shahid Rajaee University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Architecture education is one of the most important issues in the development of architecture. One of the important pillars of education is evaluation. The crit is the most common assessment method and having feedback in architecture. In research on the crit, little attention was paid to the sense and reception of students from the process of evaluation, while being recognized as one of the greatest student's dissatisfaction.The purpose of this research is to understand the students' viewpoints about the current methods of the crit, in addition of studying student designing capability, evaluate the design and process, in a way to judge architectural projects to improve the quality of arbitration and education in this field, And provides model for judgment method, based on goals, relying on criteria which are based on educational objectives. In this research, 40 undergraduate and postgraduate students at Sure university school of architecture were selected through cluster sampling as focus groups. Among them, critical explanation with weight of 38% is more important, after that the development of the chosen idea with 21%, the concept and design solution, with 17% & 14% eventually the final design with 10% is the least important of the five criteria.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Architecture training
  • Evaluation
  • Design process
  • Architectural design studio
  • Student

[1] Alagbe, O., Aderonmu, P., Opoko, A., Oluwatayo, A., Dare-Abel, O., (2014). Relevance of manual drafting in design studio education in Nigeria: Covenant University Architecture Students Perspective. Proceedings of EDULEARN14 Conference. 7th–9th July 2014, Barcelona, Spain, 1588–1594.

[2] Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M.D., Yi-LuenDo, E., (2013) .A theoretical framework of design critiquingin architecture studios. Des.Stud. 34 (3),302–325.

[3] Adeyemi, E.A., (2012). In the Making of an Mrchitect: the Zaria Experience. Covenant University Press, Ota.

[4] Mostafa, M., Mostafa, H., (2010). How do architects think? Learning styles and architectural education. Arch.-Int. J. Archit. Res. 4 (2–3), 310–317.

[5] Alagbe, O., Oluwatayon, A., Aderonmu, P., Alalade, G., (2015). Difference in grading parameters in architectural schools and its impact on the competency rating of future professionals, Frontiers of Architectural Research. (4), 230–236.

[6] Wolffe, M., & Defesche. A., (1999). VALUED Approach to the Assessment of Design Skills in Architectural Education: A Pilot Study, in Quality in Higher Education. 5. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.

[7] Anthony, K. H., (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

[8] Vaughan, D. & Yorke, M., (2009). I can’t believe it’s not better: The paradox of NSS scores for art and design. ADM-HEA Subject Centre of the Higher Education Academy and by the HEAD Trust. 8.

[9] Race, P., (2001). A Briefing on Self, Peer & Group Assessment. Learning and Teaching Support Network.

[10] Mahdizadeh Seraj, F. & Mardomi, K., (2008). The criteria of the project of architectural design. Proceedings of the third conference on teaching architecture. Tehran. Teharn University: 491-514. [in Persian]

[11] Dinham, S., (1986). Architectural Education : Is Jury Criticism a Valid Teaching Technique. Architectural Record. November 1986.

[12] Noizet, G., (1997). ‭Psychologie del, evaluation scolaire. translated by Hamzeh Ganji, Tehran, Etelaat Publication. [in Persian]

[13] Gray, LR., (1991). Educational Evaluation & Measurment, NewYork, Macmillan International.

[14] Seyf, A., (2000). Assessment of Learning Processes and Products. Tehran, Doran Publication. [in Persian]

[15] Bazargan, A., (2010). Educational Evaluation. Tehran, SAMT. [in Persian]

[16] Rais Dana, F., (1991). Introducing the definitions of research and assessment and presenting the analogy and differential sides of them. Taleem o Tarbiat magazine, (25), 32-52. [in Persian]

[17] Rahimzadeh, M., (2009). Recording non-movable listed buildings in Iran (report). Tehran, Iran Cultural Heritage, Handcrafts and Tourism Organization. 133. [in Persian]

[18] Sadler, D. R., (2002). Ah! … so that’s ‘quality’, in: P. Schwartz & G. Webb (Eds) Assessment: case studies, experience and practice from higher education. London: Kogan Page.

[19] Sadler, D.R., (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education, Assessment and education in higher education, 30(2), 175-193.

[20] Nafisi, Gh. R., (1997). Assessment and Evaluation. Tehran: Islamic Azad University. [in Persian]

[21] Mirriyahi, S., (2009). The evaluation of architectural design skills in teaching. Sofeh magazine, Tehran. 19 (49). 61-68. [in Persian]

[22] Boyer, E. L., & Mitgang, L. D., (1996). Building community: A new future for architectural education and practice. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

[23] Sara, R. & Parnell, R., (2004). The review process. CEBE Briefing Guide Series 3.

[24] Ramsden, P., (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. 2nd ed. London: Routledge Falmer.

[25] Wilkin, M., (2000). Reviewing the review: An account of a research investigation of the ‘crit’. In: Nicol, D. & Pilling, S. (Eds.). Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism. London: E & FN Spon, Oxford, 100-107.

[26] Kadivar, p., (2000). Educational Psychology. Tehran: Samt Publication. [in Persian]

[27] Seyf, A., (2008). Educational Measurement and Evaluation. Tehran: Doran Publication. [in Persian]

[28] Mirriyahi, S., (1996). Architectural design assessment and its consequences. Sofeh magazine, Tehran. (42), 86-97. [in Persian]

[29] Stuart-Murray, J., (2010). The effectiveness of the traditional architectural critique and explorations of alternative methods. CEBE Transactions, 7(1), 6-19.

[30] Ilozor, B., (2006). Balancing jury critique in design reviews. CEBE Transactions, 3(2), 52-79.

[31] White, R., (2000). The student-led ‘crit’ as a learning device. In: Nicol, D. & Pilling, S. (Eds.). Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism. London: E & FN Spon, 211-219.

[32] Biggs, J., (2003). Teaching for quality learning. 2nd ed. Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

[33] Elton, L., (1988). Student motivation and achievement. Studies in Higher Education, 13(2), 215-221.

[34] Kolb, D. A., (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

[35] Lawson, B., (2006). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, Architectural Press is an imprint of Elsevier.

[36] Attoe, W., (2005). Architecture and critical imagination. translated by Amineh Anjam Shoa. Tehran, Farhangestan Honar Publication. [in Persian]

[37] Kuivalainen, T., (2017). Comparative Education Systems: Student Performance & Private and Public Funding, Management and Schools – A Case Study of Finland and Sweden. (Master’s Thesis). University of Tampere.Quantitative Social Research/ Public Choice.

[38] Crawford, K., Hagyard, A. & Saunders, G., (2010). Creative analysis of NSS data and collaborative research to inform good practice in assessment feedback. SWAP Report. Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Social Policy and Social Work.

[39] Balodimas-Bartolomei, A., (2016). Comparative and international education in education in teacher training programs: The case of North Park University in Chicago. FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education. 3(1), 6-22.

[40] Montgomery, K., (2002). Authentic tasks and rubrics: going beyond traditional assessments in college teaching. College Teaching, 50(1), 34-39.

[41] Biggs, J., (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. SRHE & Open University Press. Buckingham, UK.

[42] Litkoohi, S., (2013). The Relationship between Architecture Students’ Education Period and Judge Their Final Projects, Journal of Scientific Association of Architecture and Urban Planning, (2), 77-87.

[43] Song, D., Loyle-Langholz, A., Higbee, J., Zhou, Z., (2013). Achieving Course Objectives And Student Learning Outcomes: Seeking Student Feedback On Their Progress. Contemporary Issues In Education Research – Third Quarter 2013, 3(6), 289-298.

[44] Litosseliti, L., (2003). Using focus groups in research. London: Continuum.

[45] Krueger, R. & Casey, M., (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications Inc.

[46] Flemming, W. G., (1986). The interview: A neglected issue in research on student learning. Higher Education, (15), 547-563.

[47] Svensson, L. & Theman, J., (1983). The relationship between categories of description and an interview protocol in a case of phenomenographical research. Paper presented at the Second Annual Human Science Research Conference, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, P.A. USA, 18-20 May, 1983. 13

[48] Merton, R. K., Fiske, M. & Kendall, P. L., (1990). The focused interview. 2nd ed. Illinois: The Free Press.

[49] Ghodsipour, H., (2005). Analytical Hierarchy process (AHP). Amirkabir university, Nashr Publication. 143. [in Persian]

[50] Talischi, Gh., Izadi, A., Einifar, A., (2013). Nurturing design ability of novice architecture designers, designing, implementation and testing a constructivist learning environment. honar haye ziba magazine, Tehran. 17(4). 17-28. [in Persian]

[51] Kvan, T., Yunyan, J., (2005). Students' learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio. Design Studies. 19-34

[52] Sameh, R., Izadi, A., (2015). Design Assessment Mechanism In Architectural Education Proposed Model for the Evaluation of Process and the Valuation of Product in Teacher-Student Interaction. Journal of Iranian Association of Architecture & Urbanism. 5(8). 1-13. [in Persian]

[53] Nadimi, H., Sharifzadeh, S., (2016). An investigation into application of the “Process Book” as an educational tool in architectural design studio. honar haye ziba magazine, Tehran. 21(2). 33-44. [in Persian]

[54] Lawson, B., (2007). How designers think: the design process demystified. translated by Hamid Nadimi, Tehran, Shahid beheshti university publication. [in Persian]

[55] Milburn, L., Brown, R., (2003). The relationship between research and design in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban Planning. 64. 47-66

[56] Smith, A., Smith, K., (2015), Developing Your Design Process, Six key concepts for studio. Taylor & Francis. New York.