The comparative study of three generations of academic architecture education: procedure, knowledge, and design thinking approach

Subject Areas : architecture

mansoureh kianersi ¹ , Farhang Mozafar ² , vahid khosravi ³

1 - گروه معمارى، واحد نجف آباد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامى، نجف آباد، ایران.
2 - دانشیار معماری، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت تهران .
3 - دانشجو کارشناسى ارشد بازسازى پس از سانحه، دانشکده معمارى و شهرسازى، دانشگاه شهید بهشتى.

Received: 2016-05-10 Accepted : 2018-09-10 Published : 2019-05-22

Keywords: design knowledge, architectural education", design process", design thinking",

Abstract :

Formation of designer characteristic and acquiring design skills are of the highest importance therefore paying attention to the architecture education process at architecture school are important. Considering the world experience in academic education and examining the local conditions accompanied to attention to research on analysis of traditional architecture education in this country all in all are helpful in fulfilling a desired architecture education. The present study analyzed the academic architecture education development in the world in three eras: before 1960s, between 1960 to 1996 and from 1996 on considering the importance of three factors of skill, knowledge and wisdom. Design knowledge as sub-branch of knowledge is an effective element in all three factors and design process is also the most prominent axis of architecture education teaching. Considering the capabilities of traditional education and examining academic architecture education process in Iran (more than 70 years) a comparative and contrasting examination between global processes and internal education is presented based on conducted research studies. By comparing three eras of academic architecture education, it is concluded that the first-generation emphasized on the design process and exact definition of how this passed as well as improvement of design knowledge, as artistic or technical way. In second generation, considering the experiences of first era and at the same time with huge research of design in this time, the importance of design process and thought on methodology became the most importance. As the science and technology improved, information networks and global communication become prevalent in third generation, and the concern for acquiring knowledge for design is being faded, applying knowledge design and design thought has gained importance. In addition to the analysis of each era of academic education in three mentioned sections, comparing this analysis and considering time, it can be concluded that proportionate to the role of architect in the professional world, the role of instructor in the design ateliers have seen changes, but not homogenous to the profession. The role of teacher as the complete dominance and power has changed and nurturing a self-centered architect changed to nurturing a facilitator who accept others` opinions and then made decisions. Lack of clear analysis in different phases of education, another point in the architecture process, is also important. Architecture education is to prepare the students for accepting the roles of the future architects as well as reinforcing better and more comprehensive understanding of the environment and community, thus reinforcing the design thinking must gain more attention. After examining three generations of architecture education and analyzing the power points and shortcomings, the present study found that investing on nurturing the design thinking in the students is the main point to fulfill the educational purposes and efficiency in the profession. The quality of investing and attentions to educational methods is really helpful to nurture the design thinking for the activists of the educational domain such as researches, planners, teachers and is particularly path finding for teaching design courses in three sections of basic, general and specialist.

References:

1. حجت، عیسی. (1391). مشق معماری. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
2. خیابانیان، علی. (1388). خلاقیت در فرایند طراحی معماری. تبریز: انتشارات مهرایمان.
3. زومتور، پیتر. (1394). معماری اندیشی. (علیرضا شلویری، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات حرفه هنرمند. (نشر اثر اصلی 1998).
4. علی‌الحسابی، مهران؛ و نوروزیان‌ملکی، سعید. (1387). مدارس معماری، مکان آموزش یا محل تعلیم؟ نگاهی به تجربه آموزشی طراحی معماری. مجموعه مقالات آموزش معماری. سومین همایش آموزش معماری، (ص 310-291). تهران: دانشکده هنرهای زیبا.
5. لاوسون، برایان. (1387). طراحان چگونه می‌اندیشند؛ ابهام زدایی از فرایند طراحی. (حمید ندیمی، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه شهید  بهشتی، (چاپ دوم).
6. محمودی، سید امیر سعید. (1381). چالش‌های آموزش طراحی معماری در ایران (بررسی دیدگاه اساتید و دانشجویان). هنرهای زیبا-معماری و شهرسازی. 12، 78-70.
7. مزینی، منوچهر. (1388). از زمان و معماری. تهران: مرکز مطالعات و تحقیقات شهرسازی و معماری ایران.
8. ندیمی، حمید. (1389). روش استاد و شاگردی، از نگاهی دیگر. هنرهای زیبا-معماری و شهرسازی،44، 36-27.
9. نورانی‌پور،‌ رحمت الله (1372). مفهوم کیفیت و چهار بعد کیفی آموزش عالی. مجموعه مقالات بهبود کیفیت آموزش عالی دانشگاه، ‌تهران، شهید بهشتی، (ص 312-308). تهران: دانشگاه تهران.

10. Aken, V. (2005). Valid Knowledge for the Professional Design of Large and Complex Design Process. Design s‌tudies, 26, 379-404.
11. Beamish, A. (2002). S‌trategies for international design s‌tudios: using information technologies for collaborative learning and design. In A. Salama, W. O'Reily, and K. Noschis (eds.), Architectural education today: Cross cultural perspectives, (133-142). Lausanne, Switzerland: Comportements.
12. Carlhian, J. P. (1979). The Ecole Des Beaux-Arts. Journal Of Architectural Education, 33, 7-17.
13. Davis, H. (1983). Individual houses in groups: A pattern language in a teaching s‌tudio. Journal of Architectural Education, 36, 78-90.
14. Dutton, T. (1991). The hidden curriculum and the design s‌tudio: Toward a critical s‌tudio pedagogy. In T. Dutton (ed.), Voices in architectural education (165-194). New York, NY: Bergin and Garvey.
15. Eilouti, B. H. (2012). Knowledge Recycling and  Transformation in Design. In New Research on Knowledge
Management Models and Methods. InTech.
16. Gelernter, M. (1988). Reconciling lecture and s‌tudios. Journal of Architectural education, 41, 46-52.
17.Goldschmidt, G. (1983). Doing Design: Making architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 37, 8-13.
18. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience  as the source of learning and development. FT press.
19. Kvan, T. (2001). The pedagogy of virtual design s‌tudios. Automation in Cons‌truction, 10, 345-354.
20. Mitchell, K. (2006). Lessons from practice: Architectural education and the notion of critical inquiry. Open House International, 31, 17-24.
21. Ozkan, Ozgu., & Dogan, Fehmi. (2013). Cognitive s‌trategies of analogical reasoning in design: Diffrences between expert and novice designer. Design s‌tudies. 34, 161-192.
22. Robert, A. (2006). Cognitive s‌tyles and s‌tudent progression in architectural design education, Design S‌tudies, 27, 167–181.
23. Salama, A. M. (1995). New Trends In Architectural Education, Designing the design s‌tudio. Tailored text and unlimited potential publishing.
24. Salama, A. M. & N. Wilkinson (2007). A s‌tructured content and a rigorous process meet in s‌tudio pedagogy In A.M. Design s‌tudio pedagogy: Horizons for the future (153-166). Gateshead, UK: The Urban Internatinal Press.
25. Salama, A. M. (2014). Course file: Senior project preparation and programming. Doha, Qatar: Department of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qatar University.
26. Salama, A. (2015). Spatial design education: New direction for pedagogy in architecture and beyond. England: Ashgate publishing limited.
27. Sanoff, H. (2005). Origins of community design, Progressive Planning, 166, 14-17.
28. Simmons, G. (1978). Analogy in design: S‌tudio teaching models. Journal of Architectural Education, 31, 18-20.
29. Sköldberg, J., Jill W., & Mehves Ç. (2013). Design Thinking: Pas‌t, Present and Possible Futures. Creativity And Innovation Management, 22, 121-136.
30. Smith, R. E. (2007). Heuris‌tic formations: Design as empirical making. In A. M. Salam and N. In A.M. Salama and N. Wilkinson (eds.), design s‌tudio pedagogy: Horizons  for future (177-184). Gateshead, Uk: the Urban international press.
31. Tezel, E., & Csakin, H. (2010). Learning s‌tyles and s‌tudent's performance in design problem solving. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 4 (2-3): 262-277.
32. Symes, M. (1985). Urban development and the education of designers. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2 (2), 23-37.
33. UNESCO/UIA. (2014). Validation Sys‌tem for  Architectural Education, Revised edition.Paris, France: UIA Press.
34. Yavuz, A., & Yildirim, M. (2013). A S‌tudy on the Utilization of Creative Knowledge During the Process of Computer Aided Architectural Design Education. (3rd World Conference on Innovation and Computer science, pp 1058-1062). Turkey: University of Is‌tanbul.