نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری معماری، گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، واحد همدان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، همدان، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، واحد همدان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، همدان، ایران.

3 استادیار، گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان، همدان، ایران.

چکیده

اصلی‌ترین فعالیت درکارگاه طراحی معماری که منجر به رشد توانایی طراحی در دانشجویان مبتدی می‌شود، تعامل و نقد استاد-دانشجو پیرامون پروژه درحال پیشرفت دانشجو است. در کارگاه‌های طراحی معماری پایه به دلیل قرارگیری دانشجو در سطح مهارتی مبتدی، ناآشنایی او‌ با ماهیت دانش‌طراحی و نیز چگونگی تعامل با استاد، همواره چالش‌هایی درزمینه‌ی آموزش و یادگیری وجود دارد. بدیهی است که تحلیل و بررسی کیفیت تعاملات استاد-دانشجو می‌تواند به تسهیل آموزش در کارگاه طراحی مبتدی کمک نماید. جدیدترین و دقیق‌ترین شیوه در تحلیل نحوه تفکرطراحان حین مواجه با مسئله طراحی، آنالیز جلسات طراحی به کمک روش لینکوگرافی است. در این شیوه آنچه در طول جلسه نقد طراحی بین استاد ‌و‌ دانشجو به‌صورت شنیداری رخ می‌دهد، مکتوب شده و متن به دست آمده به شیوه (FBS) کدگذاری می‌شود. در کدگذاری به شیوه FBS کدها مسائل طراحانه هستند و ارتباط آن‌ها باهم فرآیندهایی از طراحی را تعریف می‌کند. لینکوگرافی روشی است که ارتباط مفهومی بین کدها را به ارائه مصور تبدیل کرده و ازاین‌رو امکان تحلیل و شناسایی نحوه تفکر طراحان را فراهم می‌کند. در این پژوهش کاربرد روش لینکوگرافی به‌منظور تحلیل تعاملات تعدادی از دانشجویان مبتدی با استاد در کارگاه طراحی پایه مورد بررسی قرار گرفته ‌است. نتایج این پژوهش نشان می‌دهند که برقراری تعاملات مثبت و سازنده میان استاد-دانشجوی‌مبتدی باعث رشد توانایی طراحی دانشجویان و سهولت ایده‌پردازی توسط آن‌ها می‌شود. آنچه شرایط را برای بروز این نوع تعاملات فراهم می‌کند، به‌وجود آمدن زمینه‌ای است که به‌موجب آن «گفتگو و دیالوگ» میان استاد-دانشجوی‌ مبتدی محقق شود. فراهم آمدن این زمینه به ظهور مؤلفه‌هایی فردی و رفتاری از استاد و دانشجو وابسته است که نتایج پژوهش حاضر این مؤلفه‌ها را شناسایی و معرفی نموده است. باتوجه به این مطالب، کاربرد نتایج حاصل از پژوهش حاضرتسهیل آموزش در کارگاه‌های مبتدی خواهد‌بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The application of Linkography method in basic architectural design studio, in order to analyze of novice student & master interactions

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shima Mehrad 1
  • Omid Dezhdar 2
  • GHolamreza Talischi 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 Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, , Bualisina University Of Hamedan, Hamedan, Iran

چکیده [English]

Extended abstract
Objective and Background: In basic architecture design studio, due to the student being at the novice  skill level, his unfamiliarity with the nature of design knowledge and how to interact with the Master, there are always challenges in the field of teaching and learning. The most important activity in these studio, which leads to the development of novice students' design ability, is the "Master-student interactions" around the project as the student progresses. One of the key theories in describing how to teach in design studios belongs to "Donald Schon", a philosopher and researcher in the field of design education. The results of Schons research introduce "action with reflection" as the main factor in making knowledge in the studio. According to Schon's theory, the establishment of different levels of reflection takes place in the context of interactions between Master and student. For this reason, in order to improve and facilitate education in basic studios, it is necessary to analyze the interactions between the Master and novice students. Understanding the different dimensions of these interactions as well as the effective components on it can be effective in improving the training of novice designers.
Methods: The latest and most accurate way to analyze the way designers think when faced with a design problem is to analyze design sessions using the linkography method. linkography is a structural-applied method for examining and analyzing the production of design ideas as a communication network. This method was first studied and introduced by Goldschmidt (1990) to study the design protocol and then accepted by other researchers. A linkograph illustrates the design movements and the relationship between them. In this way, what happens audibly between the Master and the student during the design critique session is written and the resulting text is coded (FBS). In 1990, Jane Jero introduced the FBS encoding method, which is compatible with the linkography method.
In FBS coding, codes are design issues and their relationship to each other defines design processes. Linkography  is a method that transforms the conceptual connection between codes into illustrated representations and thus allows the analysis and identification of designers' thinking. In this research, the application of linkography method to analyze the interactions of a number of novice students with the Master in the basic design Studio has been investigated.
Findings: The results show that establishing positive and constructive interactions between the Master-student's student increases the design ability of students and facilitates their brainstorming. What provides the conditions for this type of interaction is the creation of a context in which "dialogue" between the novice Master-student can take place. In general, the Master can be present in the Studio in three roles: friend, coach and commander. As a friend of the Master, there is always a positive encouragement of the student's performance, and this leads to a permanent agreement between the two but this type of communication rarely improves the design ability of the novice student and is more effective in expanding the social and emotional connection between them.
In the role of the Master, the Master treats the student from a position of competence and power. In such a case, the student repeats and imitates the Master's wishes without hesitation to attract attention or for fear of reprimand. As a result, his design ability does not increase, and if a positive result is achieved in the project process, this result belongs to the mind of the Master and not the student. The third role of the Master is coaching. In this case, the main task of the Master is to guide and facilitate. The Master, due to sufficient experience and knowledge, anticipates the situations of the problem and guides the student to face those situations. At the same time, there is a space for conversation and the student can explain his ideas and theories. Placing the Master and the student in such a situation makes the interactions happen in a positive way and the process of reflection in practice is realized in a context of positive interactions.
Conclusion: Providing the ground for establishing positive and constructive interactions in the basic workshop depends on the emergence of individual and behavioral components of the Master and student that the results of the present study have identified and introduced these components.
For individual student characteristics such as:
Culture, background, knowledge, experience, visual and spatial perception, gender and values are effective in interactions.
For the Master, components such as:
Culture, knowledge, experience and values are influential.
The behavioral components of the Master and the student are also different. Based on the analysis of Schons text and the results of the analysis of the sessions, the "good student" has behavioral characteristics such as:
- Trust the master
- Practical attention and listening to the master
- Suspend your previous ideas
- Reflective imitation of the master's performance
- Admiration of the master (not because of attention or fear of reprimand, but because of his merit)
- Recognize the master as a source of knowledge and competence
- Mutual respect
The Master also has different behavioral components and plans in the Studio. As mentioned in the previous section, for the Master, the effective role in establishing fruitful interactions is the "coaching role". The presence of the Master as a guide in the workshop leads to a dialogue between the Master and the novice student. Conversation about the progress of the design project is an important part of the interaction between the Master and the student. Here are the behavioral components of the "coaching role":
- Guidance and guidance
- Facilitator
- Creating a safe space for the student to explain positions and ideas
- Do not use power and monophonic instruments
- Delete hierarchy
- Predict possible future situations in the design process
- Create equal opportunities in conversation
- Reflect on student practice
- Lack of explicit expression of positions and desires (because the subconscious leads to imitation of a novice student without reflection)

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Design Studio
  • Student-Teacher Interaction
  • Crit Desk
  • Linkography
Argris, C. (1981). Teaching and learning in design settings. Architecture Education Study. New York: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
Austerlitz, N. and Aravot, I. 2007. Emotions of architecture students: a new perspective for the design studio. Salama, A. M. and Wilkinson, N. Eds. Design studio pedagogy: horizons for the future. Gateshead: The Urban International Press. 233- 45.
Bose, M. (1997). Methods of Studio instruction: Hidden Agendas and Implicit Assumption.
Cross, N, 1995. Observations of Teamwork and Social Processes in Design. Design Studies 12 ( 2 ): 143 – 170.
Cross, N, 2004. Expertise in Design: an Overview. Design Studies, Vol 25, No 5, pp 427–441.
Dorst, K. 2002. Describing Design: A Comparison of Paradigms. Rotterdam: Delft University. PhD.
Dinham, S.M. (1987b). An ongoing qualitative study of architecture studio teaching: analyzing teacher–student exchanges. Proc. ASHE Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, November 21–24.
Dezhdar,O.Etesam and slami.2013. Pathology of Studio Learning Process Based on Analysis of Donald Schön's Research on Design Studios. Jurnal. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(8)591-598.
Dutton, T. A. (ed.) (1991). Voices in architectural education: Cultural politics and pedagogy. New York, NY: Bergin and Garvey.
Gero, J.S, Kan, J.w, Purmohamadi, M, 2011. Analysing Design Protocols: Development of Methods and Tools. international conference. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 10-12 January.
Gero, J., S., Pourmohamadi, M., Williams, C. (2012) the Effect of Employing Different Design Methods on Design Cognition, Articulating Design Thinking, Sydney.
Gero, J.S, Jiang, H, 2014. Comparing the Design Cognition of Concept Design. Reviews of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering Designers. Purdue University, DTRS 10: Design Thinking Research Symposium .
Goldschmidt, G. (2010). The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24, 285–302.
Heylighen, A., Neuckerinans, H., and Bouwen, J. (1999). Walking on a thin line - Between Passive Knowledge and active Knowing of Components and Concepts in Architectural Design. Design Studies, 20(2), 211-235.
Kan , J. W. T. , and J. S. Gero . 2006 . Acquiring Information from Linkography in Protocol Studies of Designing. Design Studies 29 ( 4 ): 315 – 337 .
Koach, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T. A., & Smith, D. (2012). The design of studio culture: A report of the AIAS studio culture task force, The American Institute of Architecture Students.
Monson, J. (2014). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Ochsner, J. K. 2000. Behind the mask: a psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio.Journal of Architectural Education, 53(4),194-206.
Pourmohamadi, M, Gero, J.S, 2011. LINKOgrapher: An Analysis Tool to Study Design Protocols Based on FBS Coding Scheme. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED11, 15 - 18 August, Technical University of Denmark.
Pourmohamadi, M, 2013. Designerly Ways of Customising. A thesis of PHD, Faculty of Architecture and Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, Australia.
Quayle, M. (1985). Idea book for teaching design. Mesa; Arizona, PDA Publisher Corporation.
Rahimian, F., Ibrahim, R., (2013). Behavioural Design Protocols in Architectural Design Studios: A Microscopic Analysis .Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 21 (1), 235 – 258.
Robin S. Adams & Tiago Forin(2015). Characterizing the work of coaching during design reviews. School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Rogers, Julies. (1996)The concept of framing and its role in teacher – student negotiation during desk critiques in the architectural design studio. the university of Texas. PhD
Saghafi,M.R & Franz.J & Crowther.PH.(2010). Crossing the Cultural Divide: A Contemporary Holistic Framework for Conceptualising Design Studio Education. 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN EDUCATION. UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA.
Salama, A.M., & Wilkinson, N. (Eds.). (2007). Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Gateshead: Urban International Press.
Schön, D.: 1983,The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books,New York.
Schön, D. A. 1985. The Design Studio. An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials. London: RIBA Publications.
Schon, D.: 1987, Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for Teaching in the Professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Wendler, V.W., & Rogers, J.S. (1995). The design life space: verbal communication in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 12(4), 319–335.
Webster,H.(2008). Architectural Education after Schön: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and Beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 3, Issue 2, December 2008 pp. 63-74 (12).