Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Architecture, Department of Architecture, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: The architectural education methods should encompass theoretical knowledge, as well as professional and social concepts, by evaluating the indicators of the world’s leading schools of architecture. Architectural schools use appropriate educational techniques and cover various activities involving knowledge, skills, and creativity. Considering the global developments, it seems that acquiring skills to address future challenges necessitates the enhancement of educational approaches and the recognition of influential learning factors. Due to the lack of authors contributing to the formation of architectural theory during the contemporary Iranian architecture era, it is imperative to examine the current state of Iranian architectural schools. This is crucial as they lack a suitable and systematic structure. Bauhaus school is an example of bringing about a revolution in architecture, which has had lasting effects day. Considering that much research has been done in the field of architectural education, but few sources have directly addressed this subject, this research aims to examine the educational process in Bauhaus school and provide solutions to improve the quality of architectural education. The question posed for this research is as follows: What is the process of education in Bauhaus school? And how can it be used to improve the quality of contemporary architectural education? To answer this question, the premise is that it seems that the teaching methods of the Bauhaus school can be fruitful for teaching contemporary architecture.
Methods: In terms of purpose, this research is in the field of applied research and adopts an analytical descriptive methodology. To enhance the quality of architectural education in Iran by applying the educational indicators of Bauhaus school, a systematic approach was employed. Initially, these indicators were derived from theoretical foundations. Subsequently, two questionnaires were developed and distributed among university professors (experts) and master students. The statistical population for architectural experts (professors) and students consisted of 50 and 150 individuals, respectively, chosen through random classification sampling. The overlapping indicators were consolidated based on the corrective opinions of 20 experts. Fifteen educational indicators were formulated as questionnaire questions, utilizing a five-point Likert scale, and descriptive statistics were employed for the analysis of the findings. In conclusion, suggestions were generated for the implementation of Bauhaus educational indicators to enhance the quality of architectural education in Iran, drawing upon the conducted studies and questionnaire results.
Findings: The principles raised in this research indicate that architectural education in Bauhaus school is of good quality. In line with the research objective of utilizing Bauhaus educational indicators to enhance the quality of architecture education in Iran, three components—upbringing, social, and environment—were taken into consideration. The overlapping indicators were then consolidated into 15 categories. Through assessments conducted by both students and experts, aspects such as meditation, preparation for the architecture profession, real-world work experience, practical product production, the interplay between art and industry, the connection between individuals and the university, the integration of art, technology, and life, accessibility, interdisciplinary collaboration, experimental and exploratory learning, and the potential for hands-on experience and construction were closely evaluated. These aspects require special attention in Iranian architecture education. However, other elements did not receive favorable scores, indicating a lack of alignment between the country’s architectural education and the educational indicators of the Bauhaus.
Conclusion: Teaching architecture becomes possible when there exists a complete and acceptable definition of architecture that can be taught. Bauhaus school has provided a comprehensive definition of architectural education that led to the education of an architect. Thus, in addition to being the school of architecture, it has nurtured ideas and art of students and even professors to connect with the professional market and industry. According to the studies conducted, and the indicators extracted along with the results of the questionnaires, it is confirmed that the state of architectural education in Iran has a significant difference from the educational indicators of Bauhaus school. Addressing challenges in contemporary education requires implementing solutions, such as a comprehensive review of architectural educational programs. This can involve evaluating students’ work through peer and professor assessments, integrating technical and design courses similar to Bauhaus school, fostering interactions between students and professors across different academic levels, incorporating opportunities for meditation and breathing exercises, facilitating one-on-one learning experiences with professors, and establishing connections with domestic and international scientific institutions. Additionally, providing real teamwork experiences through participation in both domestic and foreign competitions, transferring professors’ professional experiences by simulating professional environments, assigning projects that result in tangible and practical products aligned with societal needs, embedding suitable workshops, and fostering collaboration with related fields can collectively contribute to overcoming issues in the contemporary education system and advancing the quality of architecture education.

Graphical Abstract

Educational indicators in Bauhaus school for enhancing the quality of architectural education

Highlights

- Practical indicators examine the world-renowned Bauhaus school in the educational process.
- The current educational system presents solutions to enhance the quality of Iranian architectural education and solve the problems.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Alalhesabi, M., & Norouzian Maleki, S. (2009). Experience of Design Education in Schools of Architecture. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ)3(3), 207-220. [In Persian]
  2. Altet, X. B. (2006). Sanat Tarihi. Ankara: Dost Yayınları
  3. Amble, N. (2012). Reflection in action with care workers in emotion work. Action Research, 10(3), 260–275.
  4. Ansari, H. (2008). Design issues and educational strategies to solve them. The third conference on architecture education. Conducted by College of Fine Arts. Tehran:  University of Tehran. [In Persian]
  5. Artun, A., & Aliçavuşoğlu, E. (2009). Bauhaus: Modernleşmenin Tasarımı. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
  6. Atalayer, F. (1994). Görsel Sanatlarda Estetik İletişim. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi Yayınları.
  7. Baktır, Ö. (2006). Bauhaus Felsefesi ve Endüstrivel Tasarımdaki İşlevsellik Boyutu. Antalya.
  8. Bauhaus Cooperation (2019), “Classes by Oskar Schlemmer”, Bauhaus100, available at: https://www.bauhaus100.com/thebauhaus/training/curriculum/classes-by-oskar-schlemmer/ (accessed 16 January 2022).
  9. Bektaş, D. (1992). Çağdaş Grafik Tasarının Gelişimi. İstanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
  10. Benevolo, L. (2010). Storie dell'architettura moderna. (A. M. S. Afsari, Trans.). Tehran: University Publication Center.  [In Persian]
  11. Bergdoll, B. and Dickerman, L., (2009). Bauhaus 1919-1933: Workshops for Modernity. New York: MoMA .
  12. Bilir, S. and Koçkan, P., (2016). “Design Ideation: Interior Architecture Education at Hacettepe University”, 1st International Symposium ‘Education in Interior Architecture’ in the year of German-Turkish Research Education and Innovation, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp 166-170.
  13. Boucharenc, C. (2006). Research on Basic Design Education: An International Survey. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 1-30.
  14. Boyraz, G. Kayabas,T.D. Derdiyok, R. (2017). Bauhaus School of Design as an Educational Model. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research. 4(5), 748-752.
  15. Bulat, S., Bulat, M., & Aydın, B. (2014). Bauhaus Tasarım Okulu Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 105-120.
  16. Burke, Cassie Walker (2011). "Bertrand Goldberg Retrospective to Open at the Art Institute". Chicago Magazine.
  17. Dashtgard, S., Bazrafkan, K., & Jahanbakhsh, H. (2021). Constructing an Interdisciplinary Educational Model in Architectural Education. Karafan Quarterly Scientific Journal, 18(1), 95-112. [In Persian]
  18. Dearstyne,Howard. (1986). Inside The Bauhaus. Rizzoli, 1-288.
  19. Demirel, Emre, (2015). “Innovation and Sensual Sustainability From Materials to Cities, The Cities: Security and Poverty”, The 2013 meeting of the World Society for EKISTICS, Ankara, pp 231-247.
  20. Droste, M. (2018). Bauhaus. (Surna group, Trans.). Tehran: Soroush danesh Publication. [In Persian]
  21. Ebrahemian, K., Vaziri Farahani B., Molla Salehi, V., Toofan, S., Moradinasab, H..(2020). Iranian Architectural Education Curriculum Revision Based on a Strategic Approach with an Emphasis on the Relationship between Theory and Practice. Journal of Instructio and Evaluation. 13(50), 83-112. [In Persian]
  22. Ekren, S. (2006). Türkiye'de Bir Eğitim Modeli "Bauhaus". Istanbul.
  23. Esen,ece. Elibol, Gülçin Cankız. Koca, Duygu. (2018). Basic Design Education And Bauhaus. The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication, 1(8), 37-44.
  24. Faizi, M., & Dezhpasand, S. (2022). Analysis of Learning Styles to Improve Architectural Education (Case Study: Architecture Students of Urmia University). Journal of Iranian Architecture Studies7(14), 149-169. [In Persian]
  25. Farthing, S. (2014). Sanatın Tüm Öyküsü. İstanbul: Hayalperest Yayınları
  26. Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Jewson, N., & Unwin, L. (2009). Improving Working as Learning. Routledge.
  27. Gasimova, E., Mamedova, L., & Salehzadeh, G. (2021). The role of the bauhaus school in the process of formation and development of design. InterConf, (50), 638-643.
  28. Gropius, W., (2014). Pełnia Architektury. Kraków: Karakter (in Polish).
  29. Günther Kühne, "Ludwig, Eduard", Neue Deutsche Biographie Volume 15 Locherer–Maltza, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1987, ISBN 9783428001965, pp. 425–26 (in German).
  30. Habibi, M. & Fadavi, S.M. (2019). The study of visual characteristics of the most significant graphic design works of the bauhaus school. honar-ha-ye-tajassomi (honar-ha-ye-ziba), 24 (3), 97-106. [In Persian]
  31.  Hejazi, S., & Shafaei, M. (2021). Assessing the relationship between education and professional work in architecture. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 15(2), 365-378. [In Persian]
  32. Hojjat, M. (2003). Architectural education and waning values. Honar-ha-ye Ziba, 14(14), 63-70.
  33. Hokstad, L. M., Rødne, G., Braaten, B. O., Wellinger, S., & Shetelig, F. (2016). Transformative learning in architectural education. In Threshold Concepts in Practice, 321-333.
  34. Huges, Q. (1982). Before the Bauhaus: The Experiment at the Liverpool School of Architecture and Applied Arts. Architectural History 25, s.102-113.
  35. Kaplan, S. (2003). Gestalt Görsel Algı Teorilerinin Bauhaus Ekolü İçinde Seramik Temel Teknikleriyle Uygulanması. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Eskişehir Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
  36. Kara, İ. M. (2009). Türkiye ve Uluslararası Bauhaus Sanat ve Tasarım Fakültelerinde Grafik Egitimi Program İçerikleri Ve İşleyişler. İstanbul.
  37. Kazemzade Raef, M.A. Mirdrikoundi, p. (2020). Comparative comparison of architecture education methods in the world's leading architecture schools, a case example: Bouzar School in Paris and Bauhaus School in Germany. 5rd international conference on applied research in science and engineering. Netherlands: University of Amsterdam [In Persian]
  38. Lawson, B. (2016). How Designers Think. (H. Nadimi, Trans.). Tehran: Shahid Beheshti University. [In Persian]
  39. Lerner, Fern. (2005). Foundations for Design Education: Continuing the Bauhaus Vorkurs Vision, Studies in Art Education, 46:3, 211-226.
  40. Lilian, M.R., Abedi, M., Baghai, P., Bahrami, M.. (2017). Architectural design theories and methods. Tehran: Azad peyma Publication. [In Persian]
  41. MacCarthy, F. (2019), Gropius: The Man Who Built the Bauhaus, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  42. Mahmoodi, S. A. S., & Zakeri, S. M. H. (2011). Influence of Design Precedents on Creativity. Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning3(47), 39-50. [In Persian]
  43. Mehdizadeh Saradj, F., & Farsi Mohammadi Pour, A. (2012). Adjusting the curriculum for teaching the basics of architectural design on the basis of future requirements of students in architectural design studios. Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning17(4), 1-12. [In Persian]
  44. Mehrdoust, E., Aminpoor, A., & Nadimi, H. (2019). The Model of Criticism Application for the Use of Precedents in Architecture Design and Training. Hoviatshahr13(1), 33-44. [In Persian]
  45. Mirjany, H., & Nadimi, H. (2022). Active Experience Model in Architectural Education A Method to Gain Practical Knowledge through Design-Oriented Experience of Architectural Examples. Journal of Iranian Architecture Studies7(14), 5-20. [In Persian]
  46. Mohammadzadeh Chineh, E., & Soltanzadeh, H. (2017). A comparative study of mathematics role in architectural education at domestic and foreign Universities. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ)12(4), 289-301. [In Persian]
  47. Mokhtari, L..( 2015). Investigating the formation of Bauhaus and the influence of its professors in the emergence of modern architecture, International Conference on Human, Architecture, Civil Engineering and the City, Tabriz. [In Persian]
  48. Motiei B., Mehdizadeh Saradj. F., Mirzaalipour. A. R.. (2021). Approach to dynamic design and creation of conceptual designs (Study in the lesson of second preliminary Architectural design). Journal of Architectural Thought. 5(9). 215-231. [In Persian]
  49. Motovali Alamuti, Z. Akbarian, M.. (2016). Evaluation the principles of Appropriate educational in Drawing lesson at Architecture schools. The third international research conference in science and technology. [In Persian]
  50. Nadimi, H. (1996). Architecture education, past and present. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 4(13-14), 13-46. [In Persian]
  51. Naghdbishi, R., & Najafpour, H., Naghdbishi, E..  (2019). Evaluating the quality of architectural training from the perspective of the instructors (Case Study: Faculty of Art and Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Roudehen Branch). Hoviatshahr12(4), 47-60. [In Persian]
  52. Ozan, M. (2009). Bauhaus Okulu Ve Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi Mimarisi - İç Mimarisine Etkileri. İstanbul.
  53. Paiul, V. (2020, aprilie). Formation and development of Bauhaus. Conferinţa tehnico-ştiinţifică a studenţilor, masteranzilor şi doctoranzilor, (PP 39-41). Chișinău, Republica Moldova.
  54. Pasin, Burkay. (2017). Rethinking the Design Studio-Centered Architectural Education. A Case Study at Schools of Architecture in Turkey. The Design Journal. 20. 1270-1284.
  55. Poerschke, U. (2016), Architectural Theory of Modernism: Relating Functions and Forms, Routledge, New York.
  56. Pourjafar, A. Lilian, M. R. (2012). Bauhaus school and its lasting legacy in contemporary Western art and architecture. Mahehonar, (182), 95-86. [In Persian]
  57. Rouhizadeh, A., Hafezi, M. R., Farrokhzad, M., & Panahi, S. (2019). Inspiration from Nature in the Training of Structural Design in Architecture. The Monthly Scientific Journal of Bagh-e Nazar15(68), 59-72. [In Persian]
  58. Sadram, V., & Nadimi, H. (2015). The Role of Exemplar Sketches in Design Education. Soffeh25(1), 5-18. [In Persian]
  59. Salama, A. M. (1995). New Trends in Architectural Education: Designing the Design Studio, USA: Tailored Text and Unlimited Potential Publishing.
  60. Schneider-Skalska, G. (2019). Education of architects: Walter Gropius’ ideas a century later. Global Journal of Engineering Education. 21(3), 189-195.
  61. Sedaghati, A., & Hojjat, E. (2022). The Instructional Content of the Architecture Education in Iran and the Success Rate of the Bachelorsâ Degree Course in the Transfer of this Content. Journal of Iranian Architecture Studies8(15), 91-112. [In Persian]
  62. Seyedian, S. A., Khoram, A.. (2013). Studying the history of academic architecture education in Iran and Bauhaus. National Conference on Architecture, Culture and Urban Management. Karaj. 1-16. [In Persian]
  63. Shariatrad, F., & Mahdavipour, H.. (2009). Evaluation of design 4 studio's role in professional abilities of yazd university graduates in architecture. Honar-ha-ye-ziba, -(36), 49-57. [In Persian]
  64. Siebenbrodt, M. Schöbe, L. (2018). Bauhaus. 1919-1933. Parkstone Press International, New York. 1-256.
  65. Thoring, K. & Mueller, R. & Giegler, S. & Badke-Schaub, P. (2020). From Bauhaus to Design Thinking and Beyond: A Comparison of Two Design Educational Schools. Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference. 1. 1815-1824.
  66. Vogel, C. M. (2009). Notes on the Evolution of Design Thinking: A Work in Progress. Design as integral to Business success, 20(2), 16-27.
  67. Whilford, F. (2020). Bauhaus. (M. Mohamadian, Trans.). Tehran: Moj Publication. [In Persian]
  68. White-Hancock, L. (2018). Spaces-times of innovation: Collaborative, cross-disciplinary work and learning. In J. McLeod, N. Sobe, and T. Seddon (Eds), World Yearbook of Education 2018: Uneven Space- Times of Education: Historical Sociologies of Concepts, Methods and Practices (Ch. 7, pp. 104–126).
  69. White-Hancock, L. (2022). Insights from bauhaus innovation for education and workplaces in a post-pandemic world. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 10.1007/s10798-022-09729-2.
  70. Wilhelm, K. and Gropius, W. (1983), Walter Gropius, Industriearchitekt, F. Vieweg, Braunschweig.
  71. Wingler H.M. (1981). The Bauhaus, Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
  72. Yüksel,B. (1985). Bauhaus ve Endüstriyel Gelişmenin Sanat Eğitimine Etkileri. Boyut Plastik Sanatlar Dergisi. 26.
  73. Yurtsever,B. (2012).Re-thinking Bauhaus on the Context of Architectural Education,Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,Volume 51, 135-139.
  74. Zandimoheb A., Dejdar O., Talischi G.. (2020). Codification conceptual framework of education for students in architecture Primary design studios: A qualitative content analysis. Haft Hesar J Environ Stud, 9 (33), 5-22. [In Persian]
  75. Żychowska, M.J. (2019). Bauhaus - didactic experiments and their legacy. Global Journal of Engineering Education. 21(2), 134-138.