ارزیابی موفقیت آموزش معماری ایران بر ارتقا خلاقیت و تصور خلاق دانشجویان، مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه ملایر

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر ،دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

2 دانشجوی دکتری معماری، گروه معماری ، دانشکده هنر ، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس

3 گروه معماری، دانشکده عمران و معماری ،دانشگاه ملایر ، ملایر ،ایران

چکیده

پاسخگویی به مسائل یکتا و منحصربه‌فرد طراحی، نیازمند ذهنی خلاق و منعطف است. بر همین اساس در آموزش معماری پرورش خلاقیت دانشجویان در جهت حل مسائل طراحی امری بسیار مهم برشمرده می‌شود. مقاله حاضر به بررسی میزان تحقق این امر در دوره آموزشی کارشناسی مهندسی معماری در ایران می‌پردازد. مقاله ابتدا به تحلیل تعاریف خلاقیت در ادبیات موضوع و یافتن وجه‌های بااهمیت آن پرداخته و سپس با توجه به ماهیت دوگانه خلاقیت، با استفاده از دو آزمون استاندارد و متفاوت سنجش خلاقیت (تورنس و ندهرمان) میزان افزایش خلاقیت دانشجویان در روند تحصیل را در دانشگاه ملایر مورد سنجش قرار می‌دهد. در ادامه میزان آمادگی محیط آموزشی جهت پرورش خلاقیت نیز مورد سنجش قرار می‌گیرد. نتایج تحقیق نشانگر عدم افزایش خلاقیت عمومی دانشجویان و کاهش چشمگیر استفاده آن‌ها از قدرت تخیل و خلاقیت به‌عنوان ابزاری برای حل مسئله در طول دوره آموزش است. بر اساس نتایج تحقیق عدم ثبات اهداف و ارزش‌های طراحی در طول دوره آموزشی که از ساختار سیستم آموزشی ناشی می‌شود، از عوامل اساسی ناتوانی محیط آموزش معماری در پرورش خلاقیت دانشجویان است.

چکیده تصویری

ارزیابی موفقیت آموزش معماری ایران بر ارتقا خلاقیت و تصور خلاق دانشجویان، مطالعه موردی: دانشگاه ملایر

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluating the success of architecture education in Iran in promoting creativity and creative imagination of students, Case Study: Malayer University

نویسندگان [English]

  • khosro daneshjoo 1
  • arash Hosseini Alamdari 2
  • mohammad moeinipour 3
1 Faculty of Art, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D. Architect, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art, Tarbiat Modares University
3 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Civil and Architecture, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran
چکیده [English]

Responsiveness to the unique design issues requires a creative and flexible mindset. Accordingly, in teaching architecture, nurturing student creativity is critical to solving design issues. The present paper examines the extent of this goal realization in the undergraduate training course in architecture engineering in Iran. The article first analyzes the definitions of creativity in the literature and finds its important aspects. Then, considering the dual nature of creativity, using two standard tests of creativity (Torrance and Ned Herrmann), and the degree of creativity of students in the study process at the Malayer university is measured. In addition, the level of readiness of the educational environment for the development of creativity is also measured. The results of the research indicated that students did not increase their general creativity and significantly reduced their use of imagination and creativity as a tool for problem solving during the training period. Based on the results of the research, the instability of goals and design values during the course of the curriculum resulting from the structure of the educational system is a major factor in the disability of the educational environment in the development of student creativity.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Education
  • Creativity
  • Imagination
  • Graduates
  • Architecture

[1] High Planning Council. (1998). General Specifications, Program and Course Syllabus for Undergraduate Architectural Engineering. High Planning Council, Ministry of Culture and Higher Education. [in Persian]

[2] Sternberg, R, J. (2011). Creativity. Cognitive Psychology (6 ed). Cengage Learning. 479.

[3] Mumford, M, D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal. 15. 107–120.

[4] Meusburger, P., Funke, J. & Wunder, E. (2009). Milieus of Creativity: The Role of Places, Environments and Spatial Contexts. Springer.

[5] Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity in Creativity and its Cultivation. Harper and Row. 142-161.

[6] Ned Herrmann (1989). The Creative Brain. Brain Books; Revised edition.

[7] Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A. & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychol-ogists?. Potential, pitfalls, and future directions. in creativity research. Educational Psychologist. 39. 83-96.

[8] Torrance, P. (1966). Verbal Tests. Forms A and B-Figural Tests, Forms A and B. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Norms-Technical Manual Research Edition. Princeton. 6.

[9] Wilson, J. (2017). How to develop creative capacity for the fourth industrial revolution: Creativity and employability in higher education. Knowledge, Innovation & Enterprise. 15-Oct-2017. http://hdl.handle.net/10545/621932

[10] Jones, P., Rodgers, P. A., & Nicholl, B. (2013). A study of university design: tutors'' perceptions of creativity. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation. 1-12.

[11] Khak Zand, M., Mozaffar, F., Feizi, M & Azimi, M. (2009). Visual analogy and its position in creative training of architectural design. Journal of Educational Technology. 4:2. 153-162 [in Persian]

[12] Antonius, C, Anthony (1992). Translation: IA, Ahmad Reza (2010). Architectural Subjection (Creation in Architecture) Design Theory: Innocent Strategies for Creativity. Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (Soroush). [in Persian]

[13] Onsman, A. (2015). Assessing creativity in a ‘New Generation’ Architecture. Thinking Skills and Creativity. Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

[14] Mehdi Nejad, J.& Habib Abad, A (2015). The position of visual perception and creativity in the training of architects. Research in education Journal. 4. 17-24. [in Persian]

[15] Islami, G. & Shapourian, F. (2013). Theories and Facets of Creativity Education in the Contemporary West. Scientific Journal of Motaleate Tatbighi Honar. 6. 113-124. [in Persian]

[16] Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Nurturing Creativity in the Classroom. Cambridge University Press.

[17] Rogers C. R. (1954). TOWARD A THEORY OF CREATIVITY. A Review of General Semantics. Institute of General Semantics. 11: 4. 249-260.

[18] Soh Kaycheng, S. (2016). Fostering Student Creativity through Teacher Behaviors. Thinking Skills and Creativity.

[19] Asefi, M. & Salkhi Khasghi, S. (2017). A model to enhance creativity in education of design studios in the discipline of architectural engineering. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education. 19:73. 87-67. [in Persian]

[20] Bahmanish-nia, F. & Gol-Zaridi, H. (2016). Investigating the Role of Software in the Level of Creativity of Architecture Students. Competition for the International Conference on Engineering Sciences in Iran. Iran, Anzali. [in Persian]

[21] Sawyer, R ,K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review.

[22] Kyung Hee, K. (2006). Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal. 18:1. 3-14

[23] Bunderson, V. (1988). The Validity Of The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument. Brigham Young University.

[24] Bazargan, A. (2009). Combined research methods: A superior approach to research in the educational system and its solution. Efficient schools. Seventh number. 12-18. [in Persian]

[25] Creswell, J.W. (2003).Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed Method approaches. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks. Sage.