نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای معماری، گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، واحدهمدان، دانشگاه آزاداسلامی، همدان، ایران،

2 استادیار، گروه معماری، دانشکده هنرومعماری، واحدهمدان، دانشگاه آزاداسلامی، همدان، ایران.

3 استادیار، گروه فلسفه هنر، دانشکده هنرومعماری، واحدهمدان، دانشگاه آزاداسلامی، همدان، ایران.

چکیده

طراحی، یکی از پیچیده‌ترین و درعین‌حال مهمترین فعالیت خلاقه انسان است که نیازمند توانایی و دانش خاص خود است. در حدود چند دهه از شروع طراحی‌پژوهی می‌گذرد، که در این بین پژوهش‌های اولیه، بیشتر درپی ارائه روش‌های کاربردی طراحی بوده‌اند و مطالعات اخیر، بیشتر به پیچیدگی‌های کار، توصیف فضای مساله و فرآیند طراحی بوده است. بنابراین، نیاز به مطالعه‌ی شناخت ماهیت دانش‌طراحی وساختن دانش در یادگیری سازنده‌گرا، احساس می‌شود. در این مقاله سعی شد با رویکردی‌ کیفی و به روش نظریة‌زمینه‌ای به بررسی ماهیت دانش طراحی از منظر سازنده‌گرایی پرداخت. این سوال مطرح می‌شود که، ماهیت دانش طراحی از منظر یادگیری سازنده‌گرا چگونه است؟ راه‌های کسب دانش طراحی در یادگیری سازنده‌گرا چگونه است؟ به نظر می‌رسد، دانشی که طراحان استفاده می‌کنند، قابل انطباق به رویکرد تولید دانش از منظر سازنده‌گرا است، پس سعی می‌شود، از منظر یادگیری سازنده‌گرا به بررسی ماهیت دانش ‌طراحی بپردازد. اطلاعات به‌دست‌ آمده از مستندات برجسته و مصاحبه با اساتید معماری در نرم‌افزار مکس‌کیودا وارد شد، ضمن کدگذاری اولیه ، محوری و گزینشی، به استخراج مولفه‌هایی انجامیده و معطوف به ارائه این شد که، مجموعه عوامل شناختی، عاطفی طراح که نگرش او به موقعیت طراحی و دانش طراحی‌اش موثرند، همراه طراح به موقعیت طراحی راه می‌یابند، که می‌توان از آن به «دانش مختص هر طراح» معرفی شود و محیط یادگیری سازنده‌گرا مناسب‌ترین رویکردی است که می‌توان برای آموزش طراحی اتخاذ نمود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Explaining the "Nature of Design Knowledge" from a Constructivist Learning Perspective

نویسندگان [English]

  • Roya Sadeghi Fereshte 1
  • Omid Dezhdar 2
  • Sara Jalalian 2
  • Hossein Ardalani 3

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Architecture, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.

3 Assistant professor. Department of Philosophy of Art. Faculty of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Objective and Background: Design is one of the most complicated and at the same time the most important human creative activity that requires its own specific capacity and knowledge. Research in design has been around for several decades in ways early research has sought to provide practical design procedures; this is while recent studies have tended to the complexities of the work, described the problem space and the design process. Therefore, there is a necessity to investigate the very nature of design knowledge and to build knowledge within a constructive learning setting. In this article, attempts were made to examine the nature of design knowledge from a constructivist perspective with a qualitative approach and via a theoretical method. The question posed is: What is the nature of design knowledge from a constructivist learning perspective? What are the ways to acquire design knowledge in a constructive learning process? It seems the knowledge used by designers is compatible with the knowledge production approach from a constructivist perspective, hence attempts are made to investigate the nature of design knowledge from a constructivist learning perspective.
Methods: The present article was performed through a qualitative approach using Grounded Theory research technique to have a deep understanding of the "nature of design knowledge from a constructivist learning". To validate the research and to collect the data, a collection of three methods, i.e., reviewing documents, including a number of articles in credible foreign journals (Design Studies, Architectural Research, Architectural Education) as well as articles by Iranian researchers, interviews with prominent professors in the field of architecture education and field observations based on Architectural Design Workshops 2 and 3 were used in two semesters. Analyses were performed on MAXQDA software. Three coding steps were performed for library study, interview methods and data collection. In the field study method, the observation method was used and design knowledge was described in detail. This description was based on a modelling by David William Shaffer (2003) according to the design workshop at MIT University (Shaffer, 2003). Concepts and components were coded via carefully examining the written sources used, with the objective behind the data was carefully reviewed. Important categories were extracted as connections were found between the concepts, and they were sorted and categorized in MAXQDA software.
Findings: Design knowledge is not visible, though it can be seen through conduct, as it manifests itself in design workshops via drawing, handwriting, modeling, etc. In professional work, it also embodies its body of knowledge through their work. Experience, repetition, acquisition of skills increases this knowledge. Considering the fact that knowledge is formed during teacher-student interaction in a constructivist learning, each student can use his /her personal knowledge in design training to interact with the teacher in a way to build design knowledge according to beliefs, attitudes etc. In constructivist learning, emphasis is more focused on the learning process and the thinking behind the product rather than on the product or the outcome of learning, and in design process, problems are performed in a process-oriented form. The effective components in constructivism and knowledge building in this style of learning are somewhat similar to the nature of the knowledge designers apply in their own designs. The constructivist learning approach to knowledge building is very similar to the nature of knowledge, while design training can be very successful for learners based on this approach.Design knowledge differs from other bodies of knowledge and can be acquired in specific ways. Most of the time this body of knowledge is unconscious and it is very difficult to understand. A large part of this body of knowledge is tacit and indescribable. In reality, design is learned through conduct. Because design knowledge is by itself a different body of knowledge from other bodies of knowledge, the way knowledge is acquired is obtained by changing the conduct in work. Therefore, the nature of design knowledge relies on work and tasks and is focused attention on individual capacities that can be specific to knowledge and become an unlimited body of knowledge based on experience, position and conditions and pro[portion to the stages in which it is acquired.
Conclusion:The nature of design knowledge, like the pre-determined bodies of knowledge in the education system, is not compatible with everyone in a class and must be made by the learner in the classroom. Thus, each person's previous knowledge and experience is a prerequisite to building new body of knowledge. Interaction with others and dialogue with learners about the process helps build design knowledge. High mental processes in human beings are constructed through social interaction, in which individuals share information and understanding that they have acquired from their previous perspectives, cognition and experiences, thereby helping raise the level and volume of each other's knowledge. In a constructive approach, learning does not seek to transfer knowledge. Learning environments do not set confinements to pre-determined knowledge. The constructivist approach to knowledge is very close to the nature of design knowledge. So a better constructive environment can help build design knowledge in architectural workshops.
An ideal training technique for an architectural design workshop is the constructive method, and the tasks done in design workshops are in accordance with the design process, i.e., such as design issues, and the process of reaching a solution is key in here. The task of design based on constructionist features must be real and authentic, in ways the demands, i.e., those of the employer are based on professional designers' demands, but also the individual capacities of the student must be taken into account. In this regard, the role of the teacher is not to transfer knowledge, but to serve as a a guide and facilitator in the workshop, where the student bears the responsibility to develop design process and make solutions. In design process training, the teacher can, while explaining and interpreting the design, place the student in a position to become aware of the concepts s/he has designed by talking to the student and asking questions and encouraging them to reflect on the design. In this way, what has been set in him/her unconsciously is stated in a conscious way, and in fact, it is the student who explains the plan rather than the teacher.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Design Knowledge
  • Design Process
  • Build knowledge
  • Constructivist Learning "

دژدار، امید. (1389). آسیب شناسی فرآیند یادگیری در آموزش معماری ایران. رساله دکتری: علوم و تحقیقات تهران.

دیناروند، عبدالرحمان؛ ندیمی، حمید و  علایی، علی.(1396). پرورش نوآموزان معماری بابهره گیری از رویکرد یادگیری مشارکتی همیارانه. صفه،27(79): 5-18.

سانتروک،جان دبلیو. (1385)، روان‌شناسی تربیتی،ترجمه مرتضی امیدیان،دانشگاه یزد،یزد.

سیف, علی اکبر .(1386)،روانشناسی پرورشی نوین: روانشناسی یادگیری و آموزش. تهران: دوران.

صدرام، وحید، ندیمی، حمید(1394)، نقش دست نگاری استاد در آموزش طراحی، دوفصلنامه علمی پژوهشی صفه، 25(68): 5-18.

صدرام، وحید(1396)، تقلید درست، پیش نیاز خلاقیت یادگیری تقلیدی در آموزش فرایند طراحی معماری، دوفصلنامه علمی پژوهشی صفه، 24(76): 5-13.

طلیسچی، غلامرضا. (1388).تسهیل رشد توانایی طراحی معماری. رساله دکتری: دانشگاه تهران.

کلامی، مریم و  ندیمی، حمید. (1393). تأملى بر نقش دانش شخصى ازموقعیت طراحى درشکل گیرى مولدهاى اولیة طراحى. صفه, 21(64): 20-32.

لاوسون، برایان (1384).طراحان چگونه می اندیشند؟(ترجمه: حمید ندیمی)، تهران: دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی.

لنگ، جان. (1386).آفرینش نظریه معماری،نقش علوم رفتاری در طراحی محیط(ترجمه: علیرضا عینی فر)، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.

میرجانی، حمید (1388).رجوع معمارانه به گذشته: جستجوی روشی جهت کسب دانش عملی طراحی از طریق تجربه مصادیق معماری. رساله دکتری: دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی تهران.

ندیمی، حمید و شریعت راد، فرهاد.(1391).منابع ایده پردازى معمارى: جستارى درفرایند ایدهپردازى چند معمار از جامعة حرفه اى کشور، هنرهای زیبا، 75 :5 -14.

Archer, L. (1969). The Structure of the Design Process,Design methods in Architecture. London: LundHumphries.

Bartlett, F. (1932). Remebering. Cambridge: Cambridge Unvirsity Press.

Cross, N., Christians, H. and Dorst, K. (eds.) (1996), Analyzing Design Activity, London, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of kniwing. Design studie, 95-103.

Dorst, K. (1997). Describing Design: a Comparison of Paradigms. Netherland: Rotterdam.

Jones, J., & Thomley, D. (1963). Conference on Design Methods Pergamon Press. Oxford.

Lawson, B. (2004), What Designers Know, London, Architectural Press.

Polaniyi, M. (1973). Personal Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paaul.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.

Schon, D. (1963) Displacement of concepts, Tavistock, London.

Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner:How Professionals Think Action. USA: Basic Books.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: CA, US: Jossey-Bass.

Shaffer, D. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford Design Studio: An Ethnography of Design Pedagogy. WCER Working Paper No. 2003-11.

Simon, H. (1973). The structure of ill-formed problems. Artificial, 181-201.

Wilson, B. (1996). Constructivist learning environments : Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.