Document Type : Original Research Paper


1 Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Isfahan University of Art, Isfahan.Iran

2 Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran


Background and Objective:Creating a learning environment rich in social relationships in which peer interaction and collective learning can be developed is the core of the studio-based education for teaching architectural design. The social dimensions of the studio and the opportunities it provides for collaboration and participation serve as a stimulus for learning, and it is the culture of the studio that means sustainability to students. One of the interactive teaching methods that seems to be in line with the multiplicity of today's world and the different nature of architecture and the workshop education system is the critical pedagogy method invented by the Brazilian thinker Paolo Freire. Freire considers the main purpose of education to be the development of creative and critical human beings who look critically at all the thoughts, ideas and values ​​in society, as well as the actions of individuals and the way they deal with various events and happenings to find their roots. Freire's model in critical education mostly includes critical dialogue in which students (whole class) present their views and review evaluations and critiques. Participate in evaluating the thoughts of others and together with them, by combining views and examining arguments, take a more accurate and comprehensive approach to the issue and discover effective solutions. Therefore, it can be inferred that the critical education methodwith its special characteristics has the potential to improve the quality of architectural design classes.
The aim of this study is to illustrate the procedure of applying critical pedagogy in Iran higher education context –architecture discipline- to identify challenges and improve the method in the selected environment.
Methods:The qualitative method (interpretation) was selected as research method and content analysis was performed on the collected data. 24 postgraduate architecture students were selected as the sample, and by using a bipartite subject, comparison between two methods (traditional and critical) become possible. To verify and extend the model, the experiment was repeated next year with 22 different students.
Findings: The results indicated that the effects of critical pedagogy have been perceived by students in eight categories: (1) improving intrinsic motivation (2) improving social skills, oral skills and self-confidence, (3) improving the speed and quality of development process of architectural ideas, (4) creating diversity and cheerfulness, (5) reducing stress and anxiety, (6) waste of time and vain discussions, (7) educational marginalization, and (8) self-censorship. The first 5 categories are positive feedbacks and the other three are negative feedbacks considered as challenges of applying critical pedagogy. At the end, some strategies are purposed to overcome these challenges and improve the quality of the classes.
Conclusion:Some solutions to overcome the challenges are suggested including: students choosing an external reality topic, phasing group corrections, continuing the method to institutionalize it, changing students' view of the teacher as the source of information or the professor as a superior and miraculous person and change the view and reduce students' distrust of themselves. Characteristics for the critical teacher are also mentioned, such as humility, humor, high capacity of the teacher against laughter and jokes, great patience of the teacher in the face of useless discussions, and familiarity of the critical teacher with theories of psychology and psychoanalysis.


Main Subjects

©2019 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers. 

[1] Gorji Mahlabani Y. Architectural education and future challenges. Journal of Technology of Education. 2010; 4(3): 223-234. Persian.
[2] Hashemi R. Architecture is art. Abadi. 1995; 16: 2. Persian.
[3] Alaei A. An overview of diversity of knowledge in architecture. Soffeh. 2001; 11(32): 104-117. Persian.
[4] Hojjat I. A Word of Time. Fine Arts. 2002; 12: 50-58. Persian.
[5] Prosser M, Trigwell T. Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in higher education. Buckinghamshire: Open University Press; 1999.
[8] Webster H. Facilitating reflective learning: Excavating the role of the design tutor. Journal of Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education. 2004;2(3): 101-111.
[17] Bryzzheva AL. Toward a philosophy of the liberating act: Implications of Bakhtin, Freire, and Vygotsky for bilingual and multicultural education, (doctoral dissertation).  Pennsylvania State University, US; 2002.
[19] Edwards R, Usher, R. Postmodernism and Education. New York: Routledge; 1994.
[20] Beheshti S. Explaining and criticizing postmodernism in the philosophy of contemporary education, Educational Sciences (Special Issue; in memory of Ali Mohammad Kardan). Tehran: Samt; 2005. Persian.
[21] Burbules N. Postmodern doubt and philosophy of education. Philosophy and Education, Discussion Group: University of Illinois; 1995.
[23] Ahanchian M. Education in Postmodern Circumstances. Tehran: Tahoori; 2003. Persian.
[25] Khalili S, Hoseini A. Explaining the place of creativity in postmodernist education. New Thoughts on Education. 2010;6(4): 9-22. Persian.
[28] Haj Hoseini M, Mehran G. Vygotsky and Freire in dialogue based education, Foundations of Education. 2011; 1(2): 21-38. Persian.
[33] Broadfoot O, Bennett R. Design studios: Online. Paper presented in the Apple University Consortium Academic and Developers Conference. University of Wollongong. New South Wels, Australia; 2003.
[35] Morkel J. Facebook-enhanced face to face learning: The architecture studio. Paper presented in the 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium. Fırat University, Elazig, Turkey; 2011.
[42] Karimi Moshaver M. Student position in architectural design education process; By producing design knowledge approach. Paper presented in the 3rd Conference of Architecture Education. University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; 2008. Persian.
[43] Utaberta N, Hassanpour B, Handryant AN, Ani A. Upgrading education architecture by redefining critique session in design studio. Proc. of the 6th International Forum on Engineering Education (pp. 42–47). University of Sharjah, Abu Dhabi, Dubai; 2013.
[44] Abbasian Q, Belanian N. (2008). Creating Experimental Atelier in order to Improve Architecture Education System. Paper presented in the 3rd Conference of Architectural Education. Tehran, Iran; 2008. Persian.
[45] Utaberta N, Hassanpour B, Usman I. Redefining critique methods as an assessment tools inarchitecture design studio. WSEAS transaction on advances in engineering education, 359-364; 2010.
[50] Aghdasi S, Kiamanesh A, Mahdavi M, Safarkhani, M. Teacher-student interaction in successful and unsuccessful classes, Quarterly Journal of Education. 2014; 30)3(:  93-120. Persian.
[52] Shahabi M. Critical thinking and critical education. Social Sciences Education Growth. 2005; 27: 10-16. Persian.