الگوی آموزش معماری بر اساس نظریۀ قابلیت‌های محیطی گیبسون
محورهای موضوعی : معماری
رضا نقدبیشی
1
(دانش‌آموخته دکتری تخصصی معماری، گروه آموزشی معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.)
شهیندخت برق جلوه
2
(دکتری طراحی شهری و برنامه ریزی محیط، دانشیار گروه برنامه‌ریزی و طراحی محیط، پژوهشکده علوم محیطی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.)
سید غلامرضا اسلامی
3
(دکتری معماری، گرایش برنامه ریزی توسعه، استاد دانشکده معماری، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران.)
حامد کامل نیا
4
(دکتری معماری، دانشیار دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه فردوسی، مشهد، ایران.)
کلید واژه: آموزش معماری, فرایند طراحی, قابلیت‌های محیطی گیبسون, علوم رفتاری, آموزش بین رشته‌ای, مدل‌سازی,
چکیده مقاله :
در این نوشتار، چالش مورد کاوش، یافتن ساختارهایی نظری، منتج از انگاره‌های علوم رفتاری به‌منظور بهبود روش آموزشِ فرایند طراحی معماری و ساخت چارچوبی نظری عملی به منظور تغییر در رویکردها و تقابل با عدم تحول و سکون در نظریه‌پردازی حوزۀ روشِ آموزشِ معماری است. افزون‌براین، هدفِ پژوهش، تعریف و شناسایی شاخصه‌های منتج از نظریه قابلیت‌های محیطی گیبسون (افردنس) برای کاربرد در راستای مسئلۀ یادشده است که با بازبینی نظریه‌ها و رویکردهای مرتبط با آن به حدود مطلوب و نامطلوب، همراه با شناسایی وجه‌های پنهان و آشکار قابلیت‌ها، پرداخته‌شده است. بر این پایه، ویژگی‌های به‌کاررفته از نظریۀ مذکور، دربرگیرندۀ محدودیت‌های شناختی، فرهنگی، منطقی، معنایی، ادراکی، کالبدی، طبیعی و انسانی است. روش در این پژوهش به‌کارگیری ره‌آوردهای برآمده از بررسی‌های توصیفی- استنتاجی به منظور دسترسی به نوعی تحلیل استنتاجی مدل‌سازی سازمان‌دهی شده است و سرانجام به ارائۀ الگویی (مدل) فراگیر برای آموزشِ فرایند طراحی در کارگاه معماری پرداخته شده است.
This paper explores t This paper explores the challenges of finding theoretical frameworks, derived from the tenets of behavioral science methods to improve the learning process of architectural design and construction of a theoretical - practical approaches in order to change, and contrast with the lack of stasis of training method in architectural education in Iran. Moreover, the aim of this research is to define and identify environmental characteristics resulting from Gibsonian affordances to use the above question which is in line with a review of theories and related approaches about appropriate and inappropriate, along with the identification of faces overt and covert capabilities will be discussed. Accordingly, Features used on the basis of the above theory involve cognitive, cultural, logical, semantic, cognitive, physical, natural and human limitations. In the design process, man-made environment is defined as an interactive interface to establish a connection between mental processes of designer and behavioral activities of the user. On the other hand, affordances are a kind of relationship between designer and user that affect in processes which are being followed by designer. In the proposed model, the consequences of a simultaneous process of "cognition-creation" for affordances makes it a common point for product of architecture, based on a theoretical structure that supporting the establishment of most interactive relations for the designer-user. Such a process of architectural training workshop will emphasize the role of the student as a learner analysis and also the role of the educator as leader of education who is responsible for directing students in the form of the Affordance Theory. This process and method, since then based on a theoretical structure, imported to architectural design process and its training scientifically, and as a small part of the range of characteristics of behavioral sciences, has the ability of creating an interdisciplinary approach. Such researches can make a systematic and optimized architectural training according to scientific theories by other researchers with grafting of behavioral science and environmental design in future. The authors believe that affordances have two dimension: Behavior-Driven Actions and Environment-Driven Constraints; Behavior-Driven Actions Contain passive activities or flexible, individual or social, decisions and choices and needs, values and interaction and Environment-Driven Constraints includes restrictions on the cognitive, biological, cognitive, social, cultural, logical, semantic, good, bad, positive, negative, hidden, clear etc. Based on the mentioned issues and research goals which include finding an interdisciplinary model for architecture teaching based on behavioral sciences approaches in general and applying the Gibson Theory of Environmental Affordances specifically; This research is considered as applied research, And its methods "descriptive" and "analytical" are categorized in the field of general strategy. On this basis, in the description field, the research includes a set of methods that aim to describe the investigated conditions or phenomena. Conducting the research can help to better understand the situation or the decision making process and in the analytical field, research move towards inferential reasoning along with modeling for the purpose of conducting research to provide a model for design process of architectural education in the workshop.... Keywords: Gibson, Affordance, Architectural Training, Design Process, Methods of Architectural Education, Environmental Design.
17. Gibson, J. J. (1976). TheTheory of Affordance and the Design of the Environment in E. Reed and R. Jones. (Eds.). Symposium on Perception in Architecture. American Society for Esthetics. Toronto. October. Republished ac Chapter 4.9. Part VIII Reasons for Realism: Selected essays of James J. Gibson., (1982).
18. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological A roach to Visual Perception. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis.
19. Gibson, J. J. (1982). Notes on affordances in E. Reed and R. Jones. (Eds.), Reasons for realism: selected essays of James J. Gibson. (pp. 401 – 418). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Good, J. M.M. (2007). The Affordance for Social Psychology of the Ecological A roach to Social Knowing. Theory and Psychology, 17 (2), 265-295.
21. Hershberger, R. (2002). Behavioral – Based Architectural Programming in Robert B. Bechtel and Azar Churchman (Eds.). Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
22. Hertzberger, H. (1991). Lessons for Students in Architecture. Rotterdam: 010.
23. Ittelson, W. H., Rivlin, L.G., & Proshansky, H. M. (1976). The Use of Behavioral Maps in Environmental Psychology. In Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H., & Rivlin, L. G. (Eds.). Environmental psychology: People and their physical settings. (Pp.340-351.) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
24. Jones, J. C. (1970). Design Methods.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
25. Maier, J., Fadel, R. A., & Georges, M. (2009 a). Affordance Based design: a Relational theory of Design. Research in Engineering Design. 20. 13-27.
26. Maier, J., Fadel R. A., & Georges, M. (2009 b). Affordance Based Design Methods for Innovation Design, Redesign and Reverse Engineering. Research in Engineering Design. 20. 225-239.
27. Maier, J., Fadel R. A., Georges, M. & Battisto, D. (2009). AnAffordance–Based a roach to Architectural Theory, Design and Practice. Design Studies. 30, 393-414.
28. Moore, G. T., Marans, R. W. (1997). Advances in Environmental Behavior and Design. New York: Plenum Press.
29. Norman, D. A. (1988). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Currency Doubleday.
30. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, Conventions and Design. Interactions, 5 (3), 38-42.
31. Pols, Auke J. K. (2012). Characterizing affordance: The descriptions-of-affordance-model. Design Studies, 33, 113-125.
32. Smets, Greta J.F. (1989). Perceptual Meaning. Design Issues, 5 (2), 86-99.
33. Still, J. D. Dark, V. J. (2013). Cognitively Describing and Designing Affordance. Design Studies, 34, 285-301.
34. Withagen, R., J.de Poel, H., Araujo, D. & Pepping, G-J. (2012). Affordance Can Invite Behavior: Reconsidering the Relationship between Affordance and Agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 250-258.
35. Wurster, W. (1949). New Direction in Architectural Education. (The Regional Meeting of the Southeastern Schools of Architecture). Journal of Architectural Education, 4, 1-4.
36. Xenakis, I., & Arnellos, A. (2013). the Relation between Interaction Aesthetics and Affordances. Design Studies. 34, 57-73.
37. Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2006). Distributed Cognition, Representation and Affordance. Cognition & Pragmatics, 14, 333-341.
_||_