Examining the Teaching Methods of Space and Architecture Students Perception of It
Subject Areas : Instructional Excellence of management
1 - Department of Architecture, Saveh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran
Keywords: architectural education, spatial understanding, teaching methods, experiential learning, Iranian architecture students,
Abstract :
Introduction: In leading international architecture programs, spatial education is often approached through a multidimensional framework encompassing design thinking, spatial analysis, embodied experience, and collaborative critique (Dorst, 2019; Maltep, 2022). Spatial literacy—defined as the ability to perceive, interpret, and creatively engage with spatial forms—is increasingly recognized as a foundational competency in architectural education (Park & Kim, 2020; Lawson, 2001). Despite its centrality, spatial literacy among architecture students remains inconsistently developed, particularly within curricula that overemphasize theoretical abstraction or technical modeling to the detriment of experiential learning.This study explores the relationship between pedagogical approaches and spatial understanding among undergraduate students enrolled in the architecture program at the Islamic Azad University, Saveh Branch, in 2023. Specifically, it examines how different instructional strategies affect students’ conceptualization of space and seeks to identify effective teaching practices from the student perspective.
Method: This applied research adopted a descriptive-analytical design and utilized quantitative data collection methods, including structured observation and questionnaires. The study population comprised undergraduate architecture students admitted in 2023 at the Islamic Azad University, Saveh Branch. A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify relevant clusters, followed by random sampling within these groups. Based on Morgan’s table, 80 valid questionnaires were distributed and collected.The questionnaire was designed to assess the relationship between instructional methods and students’ spatial comprehension, and to identify pedagogical approaches deemed most effective. Expert review ensured content validity. Data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics, facilitated by Microsoft Excel and SPSS software.
Results: Teaching Tools and Methods
Students reported that instructors employed diverse teaching strategies, including:
Emphasis on aesthetic and geographic dimensions of space.
Sketching and form design through physical and digital models.
Utilization of architectural images, plans, and videos.
Site visits and multisensory spatial experiences.
While theoretical instruction focused on the semantic and physical dimensions of space, practical methods aimed to immerse students in varied spatial environments. Among respondents, 67% emphasized the effectiveness of practical methods, while 33% favored theoretical approaches. Variability in instructional impact was largely attributed to differences in practical methodologies.
Impact of Instruction on Spatial Comprehension
The majority of students identified direct spatial experience—including site visits and sensory engagement with architectural environments—as the most effective method for fostering spatial understanding. Others cited the utility of:
Visual aids (films, plans, diagrams),
Three-dimensional modeling,
Theoretical instruction in aesthetic and structural principles.
Practical methods were consistently rated higher in terms of perceived educational impact.
Perceived Effectiveness of Pedagogical Strategies
When asked to evaluate teaching methods, 45% of students favored direct spatial engagement, 24% preferred visual materials, 17% endorsed physical or digital modeling, and 14% highlighted theoretical instruction. These results underscore the value of experiential learning as a critical component of architectural education.
Discussion:The findings suggest a disconnect between instructional emphasis and student learning preferences. While instructors prioritized three-dimensional modeling and visual representations, students overwhelmingly favored methods that allowed them to engage directly with space through movement, observation, and sensory interaction. This discrepancy may reflect an overreliance on representational techniques at the expense of embodied learning, a critique echoed in architectural education literature (Pallasmaa, 2018; Ferning, 2021).Interestingly, no statistically significant correlations were found between spatial understanding and variables such as gender, age, or instructional format. However, an inverse and statistically significant relationship was observed between the effectiveness of teaching methods and the extent to which these methods were prioritized by instructors, suggesting a misalignment in pedagogical practice.Moreover, the study identified curriculum rigidity as a potential barrier to pedagogical innovation. The existing program, unchanged for over five years, may insufficiently accommodate evolving educational needs and technological advancements.
Conclusion: Students at the Islamic Azad University, Saveh Branch, recognize the multifaceted nature of space but often struggle to articulate their understanding. While instructors employ a broad range of teaching strategies, students report that experiential and practical methods are more effective in enhancing spatial comprehension. The misalignment between instructor priorities and student preferences highlights the need for a pedagogical realignment, emphasizing experiential, site-based, and multisensory approaches to spatial education. Curriculum reforms that foreground these methods may foster deeper spatial literacy and contribute to improved architectural quality in urban contexts
• Abedi, M. H., et al. (2019). Educational strategies for schema design in architectural design processes based on mise-en-scène theory: A case study of Design Studio 2 at Shams Gonbad University campus. Urban Identity Quarterly, (40). [In Persian]
• Afrough, E. (1998). Space and social inequality: Proposing a model for spatial segregation and its consequences. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University Press. [In Persian]
• Amid, H. (1983). Amid Persian dictionary. Tehran: Amirkabir Press. [In Persian]
• Ardalan, N. (1986). Building concepts in traditional architecture. Journal of Iranian Architecture and Art, (25–26), 11. [In Persian]
• Bahraini, S. H. (1998). Urban design process. Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [In Persian]
• Barrett, P., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J., & Kobbacy, K. (2013). A holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59, 678–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.09.016
• Ching, F. D. K. (1998). Architecture: Form, space, and order (Z. Gharagozlou, Trans.). Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [In Persian]
• Ching, F. D. K. (2009). Architecture: Form, space, and order (K. Mahmoudi & R. Basiri Mojdehi, Trans.). Tehran: Shahrab Press. [In Persian]
• Dorst, K. (2019). Design beyond design: How design education shapes creative thinking. Design Studies, 65, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.001
• Ferning, J. (2021). Cognitive mapping of architectural space in design education. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 76, 101624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101624
• Foucault, M. (2019). Space as the locus of power: Human interactions and the social construction of space. Journal of Social Theory, 12(4), 45–62.
• Harvey, D. (2018). The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. Verso.
• Hasanzadeh, M., & Rahimian, F. (2021). Bridging the gap between design pedagogy and spatial perception: A qualitative study of architectural education in Iran. International Journal of Architectural Research, 15(3), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARCH-01-2021-0023
• Hashemi, S. R. (1999). Teaching architecture. Memar Quarterly, (4), 29. [In Persian]
• Hojat, M. (1998). Space. Ravaq Quarterly, (1). [In Persian]
• Hornby, A. S. (2003). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (S. Wehmeier, Ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Kabir, A., & Hekmati, S. (2004). Space perception. In Proceedings of the Second Congress on the History of Iranian Architecture and Urbanism (p. 278). Tehran: Cultural Heritage Organization Press. [In Persian]
• Keen, A. (2020). Digital simulation methods and machine learning in architectural design. Journal of Architectural Innovation, 45(2), 123–145.
• Lang, J. (2011). Creating architectural theory: The role of behavioral sciences in environmental design (A. Einifar, Trans.). Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [In Persian]
• Lawson, B. (2001). The language of space. Architectural Press.
• Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Mahmoudi, A. S. (2004). Design thinking: Introducing an interactive thinking model in design education. Journal of Fine Arts, (20), 31. [In Persian]
• Maltep, S. (2022). Teaching architecture through embodied spatial experience: From abstraction to perception. Architectural Education Today, 11(2), 85–102.
• Mirmiran, M. (2021). The role of digital tools in architectural design processes. International Journal of Architecture and Design, 37(1), 67–82.
• Mirmiran, S. H. (1999). A new trend in contemporary Iranian architecture. Architecture and Urbanism Quarterly, (50–51), 45. [In Persian]
• Mostaghni, A. (2004). The concept of space in Watsuji Tetsuro’s perspective. Khiyal Quarterly, (9), 94. [In Persian]
• Mozami, M. (2011). Instructors’ perception of space and its impact on architectural education. Journal of Fine Arts – Architecture and Urbanism, (48). [In Persian]
• Naghizadeh, M., & Aminzadeh, B. (2003). Qualitative space, architecture, and city. Nameh Farhang Quarterly, (4), 148. [In Persian]
• Naghrekar, A. (2001). An introduction to a comprehensive definition of Islamic identity in architecture and urbanism (Vol. 1, p. 392). Iran University of Science and Technology. [In Persian]
• Niko, M. R. (2015). Analysis of the impact of teaching methods on architecture students’ spatial awareness. Journal of Iranian Architecture and Urbanism, 56(2), 123–145. [In Persian]
• Noormohammadi, S. (2009). The necessity of understanding the essence of architectural space with reference to contemporary nature-based approaches. Journal of Fine Arts, (37). [In Persian]
• Norberg-Schulz, C. (2000). Architecture: Presence, language, place. Milan: Skira.
• Norberg-Schulz, C. (2010). The concept of dwelling: Toward a figurative architecture (M. Amiryarahamadi, Trans.). Tehran: Agah Press. [In Persian] • Oxman, R. (2017). Theory and design in the first digital age. Design Studies, 52, 4–39.
• Pakzad, J., & Homayoun, A. (Trans.). (2009). Grutter, J. K. Aesthetics in architecture. Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University Press. [In Persian]
• Pallasmaa, J. (2018). The embodied image: Imagination and the architecture of the senses. Wiley.
• Park, S., & Kim, H. (2020). Spatial thinking development in design studio: Comparing methods in early architectural education. Architectural Science Review, 61(4), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2018.1516140
• Rikhtegaran, M. (1999). Logic and hermeneutics: Principles of interpretation. Tehran: Congress Press. [In Persian]
• Saghafi, M. R., Mozaffar, F., & Mousavi, S. M. (2015). Examining the impact of direct instructor-student interaction on learning processes in Design Studio 1. Iranian Architecture and Restoration Biannual, 5(10). [In Persian]
• Salamat, S., Habib, F., & Shahcheraghi, A. (2021). Visual and structural relationships in modern educational spaces and students’ academic performance. Islamic Art Quarterly, 18(42). [In Persian]
• Saremi, A. A. (1996). What lessons can be learned from past architecture? Abadi Quarterly, (22), 31. [In Persian]
• Schulz, A. (2020). Space, culture, and meaning: The interaction of human perception and architecture. Cultural Architecture Review, 39(2), 89–104.
• Smith, J. (2022). Revisiting Le Corbusier’s approach to spatial experience: From physicality to digital simulations. Journal of Contemporary Architecture, 58(3), 112–128.
• Smith, J., & Brown, R. (2012). Impact of teaching methodology on spatial awareness in architecture students. Journal of Architectural Education, 66(3), 45–60.
• Soheili, J. (2001). Minimalism and poetic space. Architecture and Culture Quarterly, (4), 7. [In Persian]
• Soltani, A. A. (2017). The impact of conceptual architectural education on students’ spatial understanding. Journal of Architectural and Urban Design Research. [In Persian]
• Tanner, C. K. (2009). Effects of school design on student outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(3), 381–399.
• Thomas, K., & Johnson, L. (2018). Educational strategies to enhance spatial perception in architecture students. Architectural Science Review, 61(4), 320–330.
• Thompson, B. (2019). Spatial perception and visualization in architecture: The role of digital modeling tools. Architectural Science Review, 62(4), 210–225.
• White, E. T. (2010). Basic concepts in architecture (M. Ahmadinejad, Trans.). Tehran: Khak Press. [In Persian]