Design and validation of cognitive education method in architecture based on Problem-Based Learning, Mental Map and Breath’s Thinking models

Afshari, A.; Karvan, F.; Mahdinejad, J.

doi:10.22061/tej.2024.9891.2912

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

¹ Department of Architecture, College of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran

² Department of Architecture and Urban Design, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2024.9891.2912

Abstract

Background and Objectives: One of the important approaches in education is cognitive theories. Despite many applications in the field of cognitive approach development in design education, there are still challenges. The cognitive approach deals with the scientific study of mental processes such as thinking, understanding, problem solving and reasoning. In the field of education, the teaching method in the cognitive approach is related to cognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies are processes with the help of which learning, remembering, and thinking take place. Therefore, cognition and cognitive strategies play a very important role in the teaching and learning process. Different models and cognitive strategies are used in education. In the current research, three models of learning mental map, problem solving and breath of thinking were discussed. The purpose of this research was to design and validate the cognitive education method in architecture based on problem-oriented learning patterns, mind map and expansion of thinking and its effect on architecture students' ideation.
Methods: The current research is of a mixed type (qualitative and quantitative) and in terms of time it is a cross-sectional study. The method of collecting information in the present research was library and field method. In this study, cognitive model training is considered as an independent variable and students' ideation as a dependent variable. First, various sources were examined and the components of the cognitive educational model were identified using the content analysis method, and then the components were finally approved using the Delphi method and the judges' opinions. In the external validation phase, a semi-experimental method was used with a pre-test and post-test design with a control group. The statistical population included professors of the department of architecture and educational technology and architecture students of Hamadan branch of Azad University. The sampling method in this research was available. In the group of professors, 12 people were selected for the internal validity of the model with the available method. 50 architecture students of design course 3 were replaced as samples in two experimental and control groups. Based on this, 25 people were randomly assigned to the experimental group and 25 people were assigned to the control group. The model of cognitive training was presented to the experimental group in a period of 10 weeks and every week in a 90-minute training session. The method of implementing the cognitive education model was that students were taught in the form of an educational program during the design course semester using different cognitive models in multiple sessions. Data analysis was done using Spss software version 22.
Findings: The results of developing the combined cognitive education model showed that this model included 7 categories and 57 components. The internal validity of the model was checked by Delphi method, 11 components were removed and Kendall's correlation coefficient was 0.82 based on the opinion of 12 judges for the components of the model, which was significant at the 0.01 level. In the field of external validity, the results of covariance analysis showed that education based on the developed model has a significant effect on students' ideation.
Conclusion: The cognitive educational model Problem-based learning, mental map and breath’s thinking in the bachelor's degree in architecture consists of 3 axes, 7 categories and 46 components. The three main axes or educational goals included content, teaching method and evaluation. The content axis included three categories (strategies based on previous knowledge, based on Problem-based learning and breath’s thinking). The axis of teaching or learning method included two categories (interactive and individual) and the axis of evaluation included two categories (process-oriented and result-oriented). The internal and external validity of the model was examined and the results confirmed its validity. Based on this, it can be suggested that the current model be used in the teaching of architectural design courses.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Emerging educational technologies

COPYRIGHTS
© 2024 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

References

[1] Jin R T, Yang P, Piroozfar B G, Kang D, Wanatowski C M, Hancock, Tang L. Project-based Pedagogy in Interdisciplinary Building Design Adopting BIM. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 2018; 25 (10):1376–1397.

https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam-07-2017-0119

[2] Sedaghati, Abbas, Hojat, Essa. Comparing the success rate of architecture training courses after the revolution. Journal of Architectural Thought, 2019, 4(7): 44-57. [In Persian]

[3] Sulistianingsih A S, Dalu C A. Improving Architecture Student Creativity in Project-Based Environmental Knowledge Learning. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations. 2021;34(4), 90-97.

[4] Labib W, Pesina I, Abdelhadi A, Bayram G, Nuruunabi M. (2019). Learning style preferences of architecture and interior design students in Saudi Arabia: A survey. Methods X. 2019. 6, 961-967.

[5] Moreira, M. A. Why Concepts, Why Meaningful Learning, Why Collaborative Activities and Why Concept Maps? Meaningful Learning Review, 2011. 6(3), 5-13.

[6] Duman B, Yavuz Ö K. The Effect of Project-Based Learning on Students’ Attitude Towards English Classes. Journal of Education and Training Studies. 2018: 6(22), 219-246.

https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i11a.3816

[7] Myung Eun Cho, Ju Hyun Lee & Mi Jeong Kim (2023) Identifying online learning experience of architecture students for a smart education environment, Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering. 2023, 22:4, 1903-1914.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2022.2145216

[8] LaForce Melanie, Noble Elizabeth, Blackwell Courtney. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and Student Interest in STEM Careers. The Roles of Motivation and Ability Beliefs. Educational science. 2017

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7040092

[9] Lee M F, Lai C S. Exploring Learners' Mental Health Profile: A study in University Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.2017. Volume 226.

[10] Doheim R, Yousof N. Creativity in Architecture Design Studio. Assessing Students’ and instructors’ perception. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020: 249. 1-23.

[11] Fischer C, Bol L, Pribesh S. An Investigation of Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Smaller Learning Community Social Studies Classrooms. Am. Secondary Educ. 2011: 39(2):5-25.

[12] Deng Wenqian. Research on the Performance of Creative Thinking Based on Graphic Creativity in Dynamic Graphic Design. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. 2021; 572.

[13] Talebi, M., Moosavi, M. S., & Poshneh, K. An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Creativity Teaching Techniques on Architectural Design with emphasis on the process of idea- finding and idea-generation. Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Science, 2021;11(2), 71-100. [In Persain]

[14] Etemadipour Marzieh, Mehdinejad Jamaledin, Saleh Sedghpour Bahram. Components of Ideation in designing process by semiotic approach with factor analysis in R. Journal of Architectural Thought. 2020: 4(8), 1-11. [In Persian]

[15] Sharif Hamid Reza, Nadimi Hamid. Ideation versus idea processing in architectural design thinking. Soffeh. 2013: 23(62):19-26. [In Persian]

[16] Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L. (2015). Design Thinking Research: Building Innovators; Springer: Cham, Switzerland.

[17] Dosi C, Rosati F, Vignoli M. Measuring Thinking Mindset. International design conference-design. 2018.

[18] Avsec S, Jagiello-Kowalczyk, M. (2021). Investigating Possibilities of Developing Self-Directed Learning in Architecture Students Using Design Thinking. Sustainability. 13(8), 4369.

[19] Leahy K, Yilmaz S, Seifert C, Daly S. Integrating Design Heuristics into Your Classroom. Annual Conference of American Society of Engineering Education, LA .2016 29, p. 25796.

[20] Djari C, Arrouf A. The Impact of Viewing Images of Precedents on the Cognitive Process of Architectural Idea Generation. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Delft, The Netherlands. 2019.

[21] Paananen Ville, Oppenlaender Jonas, Visuri Aku. Using text-to-image generation for architectural design ideation. arXiv:2304.10182v1, 2023, 20.

]22[ Nadimi H, Shariat rad F. Sources of architectural ideation: A research in the process of ideation of several architects from the professional community of the country. Journal of Fine Arts.2012, 17(2): 5-14. [In Persian]

[23] Faizi Mohsen, Dezhpasand Sahel. Analysis of Learning Styles to Improve Architectural Education (Case Study: Architecture Students of Urmia University). Journal of Iranian Architectural Studies. 2017: 7(14), 149-169. [In Persian]

[24] Hosseini Elaheh, Flamaki Mohammad Mansour, Hojjat Isa. Explaining pattern of individual-centered design process and Architectural design training model based on learners’ cognitive differences. Hoviatshar. 2021: 15(3), 43-58. [In Persian]

[25] Yorgancıoglu Derya, Altınkaya Genel Özlem. (2022) Reversing the design process in the introductory architectural design studio: The exploratory function of sketch modelling. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 21 (1), 67 https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00047_1

[26] Lotfabadi Pooya, Iranmanesh Aminreza. Evaluation of learning methods in architecture design studio via analytic hierarchy process: a case study. Architectural Engineering and Design Management. 2023.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17452007.2023.2237054

[27] Creswell John W, Plano Clark Vicky. Mixed research methods, translation: Kiyamanesh, Alireza and Saraei, Javed. Tehran: Aizh Publishing House. 2019. [In Persian]

[28] Green S, Southee D, Boult J. Towards a Design Process Ontology. The Design Journal. 2014:17(4), 515-537.

[29] Beghetto R A. Teaching creative thinking in K12 schools. The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking. New York: Routledge. 2015.

[30] Seif Ali Akbar. Modern educational psychology. Tehran: Doran. 2018. [In Persian]

[31] Yuliati L, Fauziah R, Hidayat A. Student’s critical thinking skills in authentic problem-based learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2018:1013(1), 0-6.

[32] Zohar A. Challenges in wide scale implementation efforts to foster higher order thinking (HOT) in science education across a whole school system. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2013: 10: 223-249.

[33] Amrai, Forozan; Ghadampour, Ezattolah; Sharifi, Tayebe; Ghzanfari, Ahmad. The comparison effect of extensively thinking skills and self-regulation learning strategies training on creativity (fluidity, initiative, flexibility, expansion) of students. Innovation and creativity in human sciences. 2018: 8(4), 97-128.

[34] Keenahan J, McCrum D. Developing interdisciplinary understanding and dialogue between Engineering and Architectural students: design and evaluation of a problem-based learning module, European Journal of Engineering Education. 2021:46(4), 575-603.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2020.1826909

[35] Gargouri C, Naatus M K. An Experiment in Mind-Mapping and Argument-Mapping: Tools for Assessing Outcomes in the Business Curriculum. e-J. Bus. Educ. Scholarsh. Teach. 2017: 11, 39–78.

[36] Liu, Chin; Kim, Juho; Wang, Hao-Chuan. ConceptScape: Collaborative Concept Mapping for Video Learning. Proceeding of the 2018 confrence.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3173574.3173961

[37] Roessger, Kevin M; Daley, Barbara J.; Hafez, Duaa A. Effects of teaching concept mapping using practice, feedback, and relational framing. Learning and Instrution, 2018. 54, 11-21.