Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Architecture, Sanandaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj, Iran

2 Department of Conservation of Historic Buildings and Sites, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Objective:Architecture is a science in which aesthetics and sensory experiences are very important and creative action is a way of thinking and understanding. The use of combination education in basic courses is very important and combination education is very important in successfully achieving educational goals. By using efficient teaching methods and scientific methods, abandoning traditional methods, challenging students' minds, applying the element of creativity at all levels of teaching and creating active and dynamic classrooms that ensure sustainable learning in students, the desired situation can be achieved. Education in architecture uses visual methods in teaching and design process. The methods of teaching basic architecture courses should be such that they develop personal feelings and gain the confidence of new students, so proper training in the studios of basic courses is of special importance to improve the skills of new students. The proper education in basic courses is very important in improving the skills of novices. The purpose of this qualitative study is to assess the pathology of architecture education in the basic courses and provide some ways to improve the skills of the novices.
Methods: So, through interview with university professors and graduates of architecture and evaluating the practices of students in basic courses, the concepts related to architecture training in basic courses extracted. Then, by using the SWOT analysis, the opportunities and threats for teaching the basic courses have been identified and accordingly the solutions suggested for the dynamic education of architecture.
Findings: The results of this study indicated that using the combination education of basic courses, preparation of a joint lesson plan, emphasis on individual and group exercises, with an emphasis on promoting motivation, emotional intelligence and creativity of the novice students of architecture, a dynamic education can be achieved.
Conclusion: Miscellaneous training and tasteful choice of type of prerequisites exercises for design courses in some studios, lack of coordination between teachers in choosing the type of exercises and the lack of a reliable relationship between the courses cause confusion, reduced skills and abilities of new students; and as a result, their academic motivation decreases. Therefore, the need for methods to create academic motivation and increase creativity and emotional intelligence in students is essential. Accordingly, teaching prerequisite design courses with an appropriate teaching method, including the combined studio method (simultaneous and combined teaching of basic courses) promotes students' creativity, increases their academic motivation and emotional intelligence, which can be dynamic and purposeful education, according to which the quality of education is improved, and this requires the organization of methods of taste of the professors of this field that are used during the correction process. When novice architects have high motivation, creativity and emotional intelligence, they will be more able to find unique design answers, and as a result, by choosing a suitable concept, they will determine their design path and achieve an acceptable design.
 
=====================================================================================
COPYRIGHTS 
©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. 
=====================================================================================

Keywords

Main Subjects

[1] Land R, Meyer Jan HF, Flanagan MT. Threshold concepts in practice, Rotterdam: Sense publishers; 2016.

[2] Afacan Y. Blended learning for non-studio courses: Interior architecture student experiences. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 116: 1599-1603.

[3] Zavaraki EZ, Norouzi D, Safavi S.R. Creativity development based on synectics model in the english subject. Quarterly Journal of Innovation and Creativity in Human Sciences. 2012; 1(4): 65-83. Persian.

[4] Tok SY, Kaplan I, Taneli Y. Photography in architectural education: A tool for assessing social aspects of the built environment. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences. 2010; 2(2): 2583-2588.

[5] Schreiber S. Education for architecture in the united states and canada. In P. P. B. McGaw (Ed.), International encyclopedia of education (Third Edition) (pp. 13-18). Oxford: Elsevier; 2010.

[6] Dayaratne, R. Environment-behaviour research and the teaching of architecture in the design studio: An experiment in bahrain. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013; 105: 314-324.

[7] Çıkış Ş, Çil E. Problematization of assessment in the architectural design education: First year as a case study. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences. 2009; 1(1): 2103-2110.

[8] Karslı UT. Factors influencing function and form decisions of interior architectural design studio students. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 174: 1090-1098.

[9] Utaberta N, Hassanpour B, Bahar MA. An overview of architecture education in malaysia: a critical analysis of assessment and critique session in 2nd year of architecture design studio at architecture department, The national university of malaysia. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 60: 221-227.

[10] Ertas S, Tas A. Studio courses (Project-design) of interior architecture education: Analysis of sustainable culture tourism; Sample of sille. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 182: 289-294.

[11] Ustaomeroglu AA. Concept-interpretation-product in architectural design studios-karadeniz technical universty 2nd semester sample. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 197: 1897-1906.

[12] McDonnell J. Scaffolding practices: A study of design practitioner engagement in design education. Design Studies. 2016; 45: 9-29.

[13] Resuloglu C. (Re) thinking the basics of design: Can fairytales be teaching tools?. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 51: 188-192.

[14] Saghafi MR,  Mozaffar F,  Moosavi SM.  Investigating the impact of DCIS teaching method (Direct collaboration of instructor and student) on the learning process of architectural design basics (Module I). Maremat & Memari-e Iran. 2016; 5(10): 79-90.  Persian.

[15] Gharibpour A, Toutounchi Moghaddam M. Comparative revising the curriculum of basic design studios in undergraduate studies of architecture. Journal of Fine Arts. 2016; 20(4): 59-72. Persian.

[16] Callahan A. MIT Architecture Handbook, Massachusetts institute of technology school of architecture & planning department of architecture, Massachusetts institute of technology; 2016.

[17] Moosavi SM. The teaching model “DCIS” (Direct collaboration of instructor and student) in learning process of architecture (doctoral dissertation). AUI, Isfahan; 2016.  Persian.

[18] Hojat E. Creative education - Experience 2002. Journal of  Fine Arts. 2004; 18: 25-36. Persian.

[19] Mehdizadeh Saradj F, Farsi Mohammadi Pour A. Adjusting the curriculum for teaching the basics of architectural design on the basis of future requirements of students in architectural design studios. Journal of Fine Arts. 2013; 17(4): 1-12. Persian.

[20] Nikkar M, Hojat E, Izadi A. An explanation to the goal construct and its application in generating motivation in architecture novice. Journal of Iranian Architecture Atudies. 2013; 1(3): 85-106. Persian.

[21] Talischi GH, Izadi A, Einifar A. Nurturing design ability of novice architecture designers designing, implementation and testing a constructivist learning environment. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba: Memary Va Shahrsazi. 2013; 17(4): 17-28. Persian.

[22] Khakzand M, Mozzafar F, Feizi M, Azimi M. Visual analogy and its place in architectural design creative education, Journal of Technology of Education. 2010; 4(2): 153-162. Persian.

[23] Mozzafar F, Khakzand M, Changiz F, Farshadfar L. Grouping architecture: The missing link in architectural design education, Journal of Technology of Education. 2009; 3(4): 337-349. Persian.

[24] Nazi S, Keshtkar A, Parvizi R. Application of narration in architecture education. Journal of Technology of Education. 2011; 5: 123-134. Persian.

[25] Mohammadpur A. Meta method (The philosophical and practical foundations). (2nd ed.). Tehran: Jameeshenasan; 2010. Persian.

[26] ZangAbadi A, Alizadeh J, Ranjbarniya B. Strategic planning for managing iranian traditional markets (Case study: Traditional market of Tabriz), Journal of Studies on Iranian-Islamic City. 2010; 2(7): 13-26. Persian.

CAPTCHA Image