The Relationship between Metacognitive beliefs and undergraduate student’s architectural design courses score (Case study: Architectural design 5 students)

Subject Areas : architecture

houbeh tahvildari ¹ , vahid ghobadian ² , Reza Afhami ³

1 - Faculty member,Architectural Department,Islamic Azad University,Bandar Abbas
2 - Department of Architecture, Architecture and Urbanism Faculty, Islamic Azad University, Central tehran Branch, Iran
3 - Department of Art research, School of Art & Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2017-11-03 Accepted : 2018-06-25 Published : 2019-02-20

Keywords: architectural education, Undergraduate students, Architectural design, Meta-cognition, Meta-cognitive beliefs,

Abstract :

Learning is the result of personal beliefs and attitudes, environmental, and behavioral factors that many researchers state that each of them can affect other two factors. On the other hand, Self-regulated learning is aligned most closely with educational aims refers to learning that is guided by metacognition (thinking about one's thinking), strategic action (planning, monitoring, and evaluating personal progress against a standard), and motivation to learn. Researchers found that any development of self-regulated learning is governed by a variety of interacting cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational components. Self-regulated learning refers to the ability to understand and control learning conditions through setting goals, selecting strategies to achieve them, implementing those strategies, and monitor the progress towards them. These factors are the main and most important factors in developing an architectural design too. So you can imagine one with these abilities can become a successful designer and if it is true, the educational system must try to enhance these abilities as a predictor of success as mentioned above. Metacognitive training means increasing individual abilities in the discipline of cognitive processes and their control on their cognitive processes, which plays an important role in improving it, including reasoning, rational thinking, problem-solving and critical thinking. Problem solving is the main trend in architectural design education, so finding the relationship between student’s successes in architectural design, their metacognitive abilities can be a primary indicator of attention to metacognition based teaching method as a valuable method in architectural design education instead of our today’s cognitive method. Therefore, the present study aims at determining the problem of whether there is a meaningful relationship between their meta-cognitive beliefs and the undergraduate architectural design course scores grades and sketch, as the first step towards the formulation of meta-cognitive teaching methods in architectural design. Therefore, a survey was conducted in the form of a questionnaire among 208 of senior students of architecture design lessons among universities in Tehran city. They were asked to complete a meta-cognitive belief questionnaire and a questionnaire related to their cognitive knowledge in architecture and architectural experience as well as their grades in architectural design courses and draw an architectural sketch that graded by three professors in the field of architectural design. The results show that the demographic variables such as age, gender, and economy, as well as the level of their knowledge and experiences in the field of architecture, have no significant relationship with their architectural design scores. However, the results of correlation and regression analysis of data showed that subscales of positive beliefs about worry, cognitive self-consciousness, and beliefs about the need to control thoughts have positive effects on their architectural design scores and there is a significant relationship between the metacognitive ability of the individual and his ability to design the architecture. Instead of its importance in the architectural design process, it has less connection with Architectural sketch scores as a creative process. So the results may use as a hypothesis of using Metacognitive teaching methods in Architectural design courses of undergraduate Architecture students.

References:

1.‌‌‌‌‌‌ احدیان، محمد؛ و آقازاده، محرم. (1377). مبانی نظری و کاربردهای آموزش نظریه فراشناخت. تهران: نورپردازان.
2. احمدی، فرزانه. (1392). جایگاه گروه بحث در فرآیند خلاقانه طراحی در آموزش معماری. رساله دکتری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران
3. امینی، محمد؛ رحیمی، محمد؛ صمدیان، زهره؛ و غلامی، صدیقه. (1393). ارزیابی مهارت‌های فراشناختی دانشجویان در دروس معارف اسلامی: بازاندیشی در کارکردهای نظام آموزش عالی. فصلنامه پژوهش در مسائل تعلیم و تربیت اسلامی، 21،120 – 103.
4. حجت، عیسی. (1383). آموزش خلاق-تجربه 1381 . فصلنامه هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، 18، 36-25.
5. خانی پور، حمید؛ سهرابی، فرامرز؛ و طباطبایی، سعید. (1390). مقایسه باورهای فراشناختی و راهبردهای کنترل فکر در دانشجویان با سطوح بهنجار و بیمار گون از نگرانی. پژوهش‌های روانشناسی بالینی و مشاوره. 1، 82-71.
6. سیدیان، علی؛ و تقوی، الهام. (1394). رابطه میزان استفاده از راهبردهای شناختی و فراشناختی طراحان در آموزش معماری. مجموعه مقالات اولین کنفرانس بین‌‌‌المللی عمران، معماری و توسعه اقتصاد شهری، مهر 14، (ص 18-1). شیراز: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات فارس.
7. سیف، علی‌اکبر؛ و شقاقی، فرهاد. (1384). تأثیر آموزشی راهبردهای یادگیری و مطالعه بر میزان یادگیری دانشجویان دانشگاه پیام نور. پیک نور، 10، .11 -4.
8. صادقی، زینب؛ و محتشمی، رضا. (1389). نقش فراشناخت در فرآیند یادگیری. فصلنامه راهبردهای آموزش، 3 (4)، 148 -143.
9. عباسیان، غزاله؛ و بلانیان، ندا. (1387). ایجاد آتلیه‌ی تجربی به‌منظور بهبود سیستم آموزش معماری. مجموعه مقالات سومین همایش آموزش معماری، آبان 1، (ص 66-55). تهران: پردیس هنرهای زیبا.
10. عزیزی، شادی. (1387). بررسی آموزش معماری در ایران از منظر سیستم فکری - نظری SIGGS با تمرکز بر انتخاب محتواهای درسی. مجموعه مقالات سومین همایش آموزش معماری، آبان 1، (ص 270-253). تهران: پردیس هنرهای زیبا.
11. علی‌الحسابی، مهران؛ و نوروزیان ملکی، سعید. (1387). مدارس معماری، مکان آموزش یا محل تعلیم؟ نگاهی به تجربه‌ی آموزشی طراحی معماری. مجموعه مقالات سومین همایش آموزش معماری، آبان 1، (ص 310-291). تهران: پردیس هنرهای زیبا.
12. گرجی مهلبانی، یوسف. (1389). آموزش معماری امروز و چالش‌های آینده. فناوری آموزش، 4 (3)، 234-223.
13. محمدی، مریم. (1393). بیان‌‌‌های نقد معماری؛ نقد اساتید از پروژه‌های دانشجویان معماری در دانشکده‌های معماری. مجموعه مقالات اولین همایش ملی عمران، معماری و توسعه پایدار، آذر 27، (ص 5-1 ). یزد: دانشگاه پیام نور.
14. محمودی، امیر سعید. (1381). چالش‌‌‌های آموزش طراحی معماری در ایران. نشریه هنرهای زیبا، 12، 79-70.
15. مهدیانی، عارفه؛ سعید رجائی پور؛ عابدینی، یاسمن (1392). رابطه مؤلفه فراشناخت وقوف شناختی و سبک تصمیم‌گیری عقلایی
در مدیران دانشگاه اصفهان دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، مجموعه مقالات کنفرانس بین المللی مدیریت، چالش‌ها و راهکارها، دی 5 (ص 7-1). شیراز: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شیراز.

16. Bidjerano, T. (2005). Gender Differences in Self-Regulated Learning. Eric Online Submission. Retrived March 24, 2018, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED490777.pdf
17. Brown, A. L. (1977). Knowing When, Where and How to Remember: A Problem of metacognition, In Glaser R. (Ed.). Advances in In‌s‌tructional Psychology (Vol.1, pp.77-165). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18. Chatterjee, A., Widick, P., ‌s‌ternschein, R., Smith II, W. B., & Bromberger, B. (2010). The Assessment of Art Attributes. Empirical ‌s‌tudies of the Arts, 28, 207-222.
19. Ciascai, L., & Lavinia, H. (2011). Gender differences in metacognitive skills. A ‌s‌tudy of the 8th grade of Art Attributes. Empirical ‌s‌tudies of the Arts, 28, 207-222.
20. Crespin, L., & Hartung, E. (1997). Metacognition as a Necessary ‌s‌trategy for Teacher Training in DBAE: Facilitating Theory into Practice. Visual Arts Research, 23(2), 124-34.
21. Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Under‌s‌tanding how designers think and work. Berlin: Berg.
22. Dennis, F. (1995). Ae‌s‌thetic perception; metacognition; and transfer: Thinking in the visual arts. Los Angeles: University of California.
23. Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive Aspects of Problem Solving. In Resnick L. (Ed.). The Nature of Intelligence (PP.231-236). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Goldberg, P. D. (2005). Metacognition and Art Production as Problem Solving: A ‌s‌tudy of Third Grade ‌s‌tudents. Visual arts research: educational, hi‌s‌torical, philosophical, and psychological perspectives, 61, 67-75.
25. Hargrove, R. A., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2015). The impact of metacognitive in‌s‌truction on creative problem solving. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 291-318.
26. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational technology research and development, 48(4), 63-85.
27. Jones, J. C. (1992). Design methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
28. Ju‌s‌tice, E. M., & Dornan, T. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences between traditional-age and nontraditional-age college ‌s‌tudents. Adult education quarterly, 51(3), 236-249.
29. Kincannon, J., Gleber, C., & Kim, J. (1999). The Effects of Metacognitive Training on Performance and Use of Metacognitive Skills in Self-Directed Learning Situations. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 21, February 10-14 (pp.171-184). Washington U.S. Department of Education.
30. Kurt, M., & Kurt, S. (2017). Improving design under‌s‌tandings and skills through enhanced metacognition: Reflective design journals. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 36(2), 226-238.
31. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: the design process demy‌s‌tified. London: Routledge.
32. Lyon, P. (2016). Design education: learning, teaching and researching through design. London: Routledge.
33. Meichanbaum, D., Burland, S., Gruson, L., & Cameron, R. (1985). Metacognitive Assessment. Dalam S. Yussen (Ed.). The Growth of Reflection in Children (pp. 1-30). New York Academic Press.
34. Oda, C. W. (2015). The impact of dual-processing metacognitive scaffolding on architectural ‌s‌tudent writing, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis.
35. Papaleontiou, E. L. (2008). Metacognition and theory of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
36. Roussis, P., Wells, A. (2006). Po‌s‌t-traumatic ‌s‌tress symptoms: Te‌s‌ts of relationships with thought control ‌s‌trategies and beliefs as predicted by the metacognitive model. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 111-122.
37. Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari, K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of reading ‌s‌trategies among native and non-native readers. Sy‌s‌tem, 29(4), 431-449.
38. Silvia, P. J. (2007). Knowledge-based assessment of expertise in the arts: Exploring ae‌s‌thetic fluency. Psychology of Ae‌s‌thetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(4), 247.
39. Smalser, A. G. (1991). Metacognition and the art-making process of visual arti‌s‌ts, Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, UMI, Miami.
40. Smith, L. F., Smith, J. K. (2006).The Nature and Growth of Ae‌s‌thetic Fluency. In P. Locher (Ed), New directions in ae‌s‌thetics, creativity, and the psychology of art (pp. 47–58). New York: Baywood Publishing.
41. Virtanen, P. & Nevgi, A. (2010). Disciplinary and gender differences among higher education ‌s‌tudents in self-regulated learning ‌s‌trategies. Educational Psychology, 30 (3), 323–347.
42. Van Etten, S., Pressley, M., McInerney, D. M., & Liem,
A.D. (2008). College seniors' theory of their academic motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 812.
43. Veenman, M. V., Hesselink, R. D., Sleeuwaegen, S., Liem, S. I., & Van Haaren, M. G. (2014). Assessing Developmental Differences in Metacognitive Skills with Computer Log files: Gender by Age Interactions. Psihologijske teme, 23(1), 99-113.
44. Wells, A. (2002). Emotional disorders and metacognition: Innovative cognitive therapy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
45. Wells, A., & Cartwright _Hatton, K. (2004). A short form of the metacognitive Que‌s‌tionnaire: properties of MCQ-30. Behavior research and therapy, 92, 385-396.
46. Zande, R. V. (2016). Design education: Creating thinkers to improve the world. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
47. Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 10-45). Routledge.