Perception of constructionist learning environment in design workshops based on cognitive ability
Subject Areas : architecture
Farhad Karvan
1
(Department of Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.)
Keywords: cognitive sciences, Architecture education, perceptual analysis of the environment, non-cognitive ability, cognitive ability, constructivism,
Abstract :
Attention to abilities as cognitive sciences in this study was very important. First, the principle that education is not merely focused on knowledge transfer, but on the actual learning of learners, attention should be paid to cognitive and non-cognitive abilities; Second, cognitive science emphasizes the activity and perception of learners of the learning environment in the educational process.Constructivist educators designed classroom learning environments based on the principles and assumptions of constructivism.In designing classroom learning environments based on the principles and assumptions of constructivism, attention should be paid to student-related cognitive processes. The purpose of this study was to explain the perception of constructive learning environment based on the cognitive ability of architecture students in teaching design workshops. The method of this research was descriptive-correlation. The statistical population of the study was 600 students of architecture students of Hamedan Technical and Vocational University. A sample of 120 people was selected using GPower software. Constructivist learning environment and cognitive abilities questionnaires were used to collect information. Pearson correlation test and multiple regression were calculated to analyze the data. Simultaneous regression results showed that social cognition ability and non-social cognition ability had a positive and significant role in predicting perception of learning environment. From the dimensions of non-social cognition ability, only decision-making, planning, sustained attention and cognitive flexibility had a positive and significant role in predicting perception of the learning environment. Inhibitory memory and control and selective attention did not play a significant role in predicting perception of constructive learning environment. Whereas in a constructive learning environment, emphasis is placed on teaching itself rather than on how it is taught; Therefore, this training is guided in two contexts of learning and focusing on the student's cognitive ability is emphasized. The required level of scotting is also provided by the learner in two stages of scotting with the instructor with challenging activities and scotching. Given that the real world often presents complex issues and situations to learners, educational environments should provide learners with such issues and situations. At the same time, educators should strive to teach learners the ability to deal appropriately with complex environments.Based on the research findings, the importance of social and non-social cognition abilities on perception of constructive learning environment was proved; Therefore, in this regard, it is suggested that these variables be seen and emphasized in educational planning, and if necessary, they should be taught with the help of psychological and educational strategies. It is also necessary that a coherent and comprehensive training protocol and program be developed to improve and improve cognitive and non-cognitive abilities in the context of experimental and experimental research. Also, considering that constructivism-based education emphasizes most of the cognitive efficiencies of student learning, so teachers should use this educational method as one of the effective teaching-learning strategies to design and draw architectural plans. Instructors can use functional assignments based on cognitive ability as a teaching strategy in different stages of education. These programs provide instruction for educators to enhance learners' learning in all cognitive-non-cognitive abilities.
1) برزگربفرویی، کاظم؛ و شیخالاسلامی، علی. (1392). ویژگیهای روان سنجی پرسشنامهی محیط یادگیری سازندهگرا. مجلهی روانشناسی مدرسه، 2(4)، 6- 24.
2) تلخابی، محمود. (1398). فعالیت‌های یادگیری: طراحی، اجرا و ارزشیابی. تهران: فرهنگی و هنری شناخت و تربیت انگاره.
3) جردن، آن؛ کارلیل، اوریسون؛ و استاک، آنیتا. (2008). رویکردهای یادگیری؛ نظریه و کاربست. (الهه حجازی و روح الله شهابی، مترجمان). تهران: دانشگاه تهران. موسسه انتشارات.
4) دیناروند، عبدالرحمان؛ علایی، علی؛ و ندیمی، حمید. (1396). پرورش نوآموزان معماری با بهرهگیری از رویکرد یادگیری مشارکتی همیارانه. صفه، 27(79)، 5 -18.
5) سیف، علیاکبر. (1395). روانشناسی پرورشی نوین: روانشناسی یادگیری و آموزش. تهران: دوران.
6) شعبانی، حسن. (1397). روش تدریس پیشرفته (آموزش مهارتها و راهبردهای تفکر). تهران: انتشارات سمت.
7) شیخیفینی، علیاکبر. (1381). تبیین و ارزیابی دیدگاه سازندهگرایی. تازههای علوم شناختی، 4(3)، 65-73.
8) طلیسچی، غلامرضا؛ ایزدی، عباسعلی؛ و عینیفر، علیرضا. (1391). پرورش توانایی طراحی طراحان مبتدی معماری (طراحی، کاربست و آزمون یک محیط یادگیری سازندهگرا). هنرهای زیبا، 17(4)، 17 -28.
9) فتحی، محمدرضا. (1398). نظریه سازندهگرایی اجتماعی و دلالتهای آن برای فرایند یادگیری و تدریس. پویش در آموزش علوم انسانی، 4(15)، ۸۶ – ۱۰۰.
10) کریمیمشاور، مهرداد. (1387). جایگاه دانشجویان در فرایند آموزش طراحی معماری با رویکردی به تولید دانش طراحی. تهران: سومین همایش آموزش معماری .
11) نجاتی، وحید. (1392). پرسشنامة تواناییهای شناختی: طراحی و بررسی خصوصیات روانسنجی. فصلنامه تازههای علوم شناختی، 15(2)، 11-19.
12) یزدانفر، محسن؛ شهنیییلاق، منیجه؛ حاجییخچالی، و علیرضا؛ عالیپور بیرگانی. (1398). بررسی ساختار بُعدی-عاملی تواناییهای شناختی دانشآموزان پایه نهم تحصیلی. دوفصلنامه راهبردهای شناختی در یادگیری، 7(13)،91- 118.
13) Axmann, Mandi. (2021). Exploring a Framework for Constructivist Design with the Learning Space. Manage Your Own Learning Analytics. 173–192.
14) Balkemore, S. J., & Mills, K. L. (2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing?. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 187-207.
15) Brown, T. (2008). Design Thinking. Harvard Business Review, 84–92.
16) Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.
17) Cheng, Y. L. (2016). The dimensionality of cognitive structure: A MIRT approach and the use of subscores. (Doctoral dissertation),
18) Demirbas, O.O., & Demirkan H. (2003). Focus on Architectural design Process through Learning Styles. Design Studies, 24 (5), 437-456.
19) Eggen, P., & kauchak, D. (2010). Educational psychology. (8th Ed). Prentice-Hall.
20) Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253-270.
21) Jin, J., Hwang, K., & Kim, I. (2020). A Study on the Constructivism Learning Method for BIM/IPD Collaboration Education. Applied sciences.
22) Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement,self-concept and learning strategies. A. P. Education Review, 6 (1), 7–19.
23) Kim, H. B., Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2010). Classroom environment and teacher interpersonal behavior in secondary school. Valuation and Research in Edu,14, 3-22.
24) Kingir, S., Tas, Y., Gok, G., & Vural, S. S. (2013). Relationships among constructivist learning environment perceptions, motivational beliefs, self-regulation and science achievement. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 205-226.
25) Koul, R. B., & Fisher, D. (2002). Science classroom learning environments in India. (AARE), Brisbane, Australia.
26) Kurt, S. (2009). An Analytic Study on the Traditional Studio Environments. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, 1(1), 401-408.
27) Kwan, Y. W. (2020). Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of the constructivist learning environment survey. Learning Environments Research, 23(2), 167-184.
28) Luria, A. R. (1976). The working brain. New York, NY: Basic Books.
29) Madrigal, R. (2008). Hot vs. cold cognitions and consumers' reactions to sporting event outcomes. Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 304-319.
30) Naglieri, J. A., & Otero, T. M.(2018). Redefining intelligence with the planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive theory of neurocognitive processes. New York: The Guilford Press.
31) Nishanimut, S. P., & Padakannaya, P. (2014). Cognitive Assessment System (CAS): A review. Psychol Stud.
32) Ozkal, K., Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Sungur, S. (2009). A conceptual model of relationships among constructivist learning environment perceptions.Learning & Individual Differences, 19(1), 71-79.
33) Patrick, H., Ryan, A. & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of classroom environment, motivation, and beliefs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83-98.
34) Pande, M., & Bharathi, S. V. (2020). Theoretical foundations of design thinking – A constructivism learning approach to design thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 36.
35) Reif, F. (2008). Applying cognitive science to education: Thinking and learning in scientific and other complex domains. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.
36) Roberts, A. (2006). Cognitive Styles and Student Progression in Architectural Design Education. Design Studies, 27 (2), 167-181.
37) Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S.(2018). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. (4th. ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
38) Spearman, C.E. (1927).The abilities of man. London: Macmillan.
39) Taylor, P., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. (1995). A constructivist perspective on monitoring classroom learning environments under transformation. American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
40) Taylor, P., Fraser, B. & Fisher, D. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293-302.
41) Tynj¨al¨a, P., Virtanen, A., Klemola, U., Kostiainen, E., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2016). Developing social competence and other generic skills in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 368–387.
42) Virtanen, Anne., & Tynj¨a, P¨aivi. (2022). Pedagogical practices predicting perceived learning of social skills. Elsevier. International Journal of E. R.
43) Whitebread, D., Anderson, H., Coltman, P., Page. C., Pino Pasternak, D., & Metha, S. (2007).Developing independent learning in the early years. Elementary and early years' education, 33(1), 40-50.
44) Woolfolk, A.E. (2004). Educational psychology (9th ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
_||_