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

Daneshjoo, Kh.; Hosseini Alamdari, A.; Moeinipour, M.

doi:10.22061/jte.2018.3861.1952

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

¹ Department of Architecture, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran

² Department of Architecture, Malayer University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/jte.2018.3861.1952

Abstract

Background and Objective:In the process of design development, it is the duty of the architect to find appropriate answers to design issues based on his experience and knowledge to provide the design goals considering diverse criteria. Therefore, the ability to create new and unknown solutions to issues, commonly referred to as creativity, is one of the basic skills required from any architect. 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.
Methods: The present study is designed and implemented based on the exploratory mixing research method and the two paradigms of positivism and poststructuralism. In this regard, the research population was clustered based on MSRT’s qualitative classification, and one university was selected from the largest cluster (third grade universities). 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 was measured. In addition, the level of readiness of the educational environment for the development of creativity is also measured. In the next stage of the research, the appropriateness of the educational environment for improving creativity was examined based on five basic indicators. Graduated students were asked to evaluate their educational environment during their study in a closed-ended questionnaire based on these five criteria.
Findings: 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.
Conclusion: According to the results of examining general creativity of students, it seems that architecture education environment is useful for people with low general creativity, but it does not embrace very high creative students and provides conditions for high creativity to be suppressed and become close to the average creativity of the society. In general, this environment does not have a significant effect on the general creativity of the student community. On the other hand, a sharp decrease in the use of imaginative and creative thinking during the training course shows that the architectural design environment does not support and respect creative thinking and does not even tolerate creativity beyond a certain extent.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1398.14.1.17.1

Main Subjects

Architecture

COPYRIGHTS
©2020 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.

References

[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, Sternberg K, Mio J. Creativity. Cognitive Psychology. 6th ed. Australia: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning; 2011.

[3] Mumford M. Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? Taking Stock in Creativity Research. Creativity Research Journal. 2003; 15(2):107-120.

[4] Peter M. Milieus of Creativity: The Role of Places, Environments, and Spatial Contexts. Milieus of Creativity. 97-153.

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

[6] Herrmann N. The creative brain. Lake Lure, N.C.: Ned Herrmann Group; 1989.

[7] Plucker J, Beghetto R, Dow G. Why Isn't Creativity More Important to Educational Psychologists? Potentials, Pitfalls, and Future Directions in Creativity Research. Educational Psychologist. 2004; 39(2):83-96.

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

[9] Wilson J. How to develop creative capacity for the fourth industrial revolution: Creativity and employability in higher education. Knowledge, Innovation & Enterprise. 2017.

[10] Jones P, Rodgers P, Nicholl B. A study of university design tutors' perceptions of creativity. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation. 2013; 2(2):97-108.

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

[13] Onsman A. Assessing creativity in a ‘New Generation’ architecture degree. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2016; 19:210-218.

[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. Persian.

[15] Mehdi Nejad J, Habib Abad A. The position of visual perception and creativity in the training of architects. Research in education Journal. 2015; 7:17-24. Persian.

[16] Beghetto R, Kaufman J. Nurturing creativity in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.

[17] Rogers C. Toward a Theory of Creativity: Review of General Semantics. Institute of General Semantics. 2020; 11(4):249-260.

[18] Soh K. Fostering student creativity through teacher behaviors. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017; 23:58-66.

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

[20]. Bahmanesh Nia F, Gol Zardi H. Investigating the Role of Software in the Level of Creativity of Architecture Students. Competition for the International Conference on Engineering Sciences in Iran. 2016; 1. Persian.

[21] Sawyer R. Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review. 2017; 22:99-113.

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

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

[24] Bazaragan Harandi A. Combined research methods: A superior approach to research in the educational system and its solution. Efficient schools. 2009; 37(3):12-18. Persian.