Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism(JIAU)

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

News

Peer Review Process

Article Publication Charges

Submission to Acceptance Procedure

Comparative comparison of “Criticism and Correction session structure in the research studio of Shahid Beheshti University” and the “Proposed structure of active researchers in this field”

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

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

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

Abstract

Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: Criticism and correction sessions form the basis of evaluating architectural design projects. A valid and targeted assessment, in addition to measuring fundamental knowledge, also measures its practical application in practice. Integrating knowledge and skills stands as a primary objective within architectural studios. Therefore, evaluation plays a very important role in the process of architectural education that shapes the professionals in the future. The most important issue is to achieve different methods of criticism according to different conditions. Additionally, evaluation should extend beyond merely appraising final projects, encompassing the critique process throughout an educational period (such as an academic semester) for formative assessment. The application of the successful experiences of foreign researchers in the workshop critique process and its comparative comparison with the workshop critique process in Iran can determine our position in this field. The aforementioned comparative comparison has generally identified the similarities and differences of successful international experiences compared to domestic experiences, and by examining and discovering the reason for the existence of these similarities and differences, it is possible to (1) solve the problem, which is to identify the degree of conformity of the structure of criticism and correction sessions. Through this comparative analysis, two key objectives are addressed: aligning the structure of critique sessions with active research findings and identifying optimal criticism methods within educational contexts. Ultimately, this process leads to localization and enhancement of architectural education practices. In this study, Shahid Beheshti University views the architectural studio as a research workshop, adopting a novel approach to architectural education. Guided by fundamental principles outlined by faculty, this workshop aims to enhance the quality of architecture education, positioning itself as a successful domestic model compared to international counterparts. The primary objective of this paper is to evaluate the alignment of Shahid Beheshti University research studio critique and correction session structure with the recommendations of leading researchers in the field. Specifically, the authors seek to answer the question: to what extent does the structure of critique and correction sessions at Shahid Beheshti University research studio adhere to the standards proposed by active researchers? It is hypothesized that the level of conformity to these standards is within the average range, although empirical evidence will be necessary to confirm this assertion.
Methods: In this comparative study, researchers employed a hypothesis testing approach using a comparative strategy. The study utilized data from two sources: (a) the opinions of leading researchers in architectural education, particularly concerning the structure of criticism and correction sessions, and (b) the innovative approach of Shahid Beheshti University research studio. Ten key concepts, defining the theoretical framework of criticism and correction sessions in architectural studios, were identified through a systematic review of relevant literature from both communities. These concepts, derived from a scientific process, also align with historical perspectives on the subject. The research method employed in this study is a documentary-survey approach utilizing content analysis techniques. The process begins with the selection of keywords and concepts. In the initial step, information is gathered by extracting data from two sources: (1) scientific research articles authored by selected researchers on the broader topic of ‘criticism and correction sessions in architectural studios,’ and (2) published articles specifically related to this topic, focusing on Shahid Beheshti University. The second step involves qualitative and quantitative text analysis, including categorization and extraction of information from the selected sources. This analysis determines the frequency of topics within the categories based on textual elements. Subsequently, in the third step, the results from the second step are interpreted. Statistical analysis of quantitative data was conducted using SPSS software.
Findings: The rThe research findings indicate the identification of ten main concepts or criteria in the structure of critique and correction sessions in the research studio of Shahid Beheshti University. These concepts are: constructive studio environment, participation-oriented approach, involvement of professors and professional activists in studio sessions, criterion-based teaching and assessment method, simultaneous presence of several professors in a single studio for training and evaluation purposes, receiving critical opinions from different professors, integration of different student groups (peer and non-peer) in studio sessions, application of educational technologies in the studio, teacher-centered/ student-centered approach, assessment of judgment and final decisions.
Conclusion: The results reveal a direct and statistically significant relationship between the structure of critique and correction sessions in Shahid Beheshti University research studio and the proposed structure by active researchers in this field, as indicated by the ten identified concepts. This suggests that the critique and correction sessions within the university research studio adhere to a systematic and convergent framework similar to successful global models. Consequently, it is recommended as an exemplary model with the potential for broader applicability. While the research hypothesis initially suggested a moderate level of compliance, the observed correlation coefficient of 0.674 surpasses this expectation, indicating a stronger alignment than anticipated.

Graphical Abstract

Comparative comparison of “Criticism and Correction session structure in the research studio of Shahid Beheshti University” and the “Proposed structure of active researchers in this field”

Highlights

- The background of the present study contains valuable points about the efforts made by researchers in the field of architecture in introducing and applying current application patterns in the review and correction session.
- In the present study, ten main concepts extracted from critique and correction sessions in leading architectural studios were identified, which have a decisive role in achieving the desired position of architecture education in the form of creative and responsive implementation methods.
- Criticism and correction sessions in Shahid Beheshti University’s research studio have a systematic and converging framework with successful global structures.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References
  1. Abd El-Latif, M & Al-Hagla, Kh & Hasan, A, (2020). “Overview on the criticism process in architecture pedagogy”, Alexandria Engineering Journal, issue (59), pp 753-762.
  2. Abul Maali al-Husseini, Kh, (2012). "Qualitative analysis of the text: induction/ analogy", Studies of Islamic Education and Educational Sciences, No. 1, pp. 102-83. ]In Persian[
  3. Ahadi, P, (2017). "Providing an evaluation model of students' architectural design projects using the DEMATEL technique", Hoyt Shahr, No. 33, pp. 75-88. ]In Persian[
  4. Alizadeh Miandoab, A. and Akrami, G. (2018). "Investigation of different methods of criticism in architectural studios", Architectural and Urbanism Journal, No. 24, pp. 47-62. ]In Persian[
  5. Cikis, S & Cil, E, (2009). “Problematization of assessment in the architectural design education: First year as a case study”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, World Conference on Educational Sciences, pp 2103-2110.
  6. Datta, A, (2007). “Gender and Learning in the Design Studio”, Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol.2, pp 21-35.
  7. Dozois, Paula S.M, (2001). “Construction Through Critique: the dialogic form of design studio teaching and learning”, A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN, Department of Interior Design the University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba.
  8. Emam, M & Taha, D & Elsayad, Z, (2018). “Collaborative pedagogy in architectural design studio: A case study in applying collaborative design”, Alexandria Engineering Journal, issue (58), pp 163-170.
  9. Haghighi, S. and Dezhdar, A. and Dehghan, N. (2018). "Improving architectural design ability based on learning to design modern structures", Iranian Architectural Studies, No. 15, pp. 193-216. ]In Persian[
  10. Jabari Nougabi, H, (2015). "Advanced statistical methods and linear models in animal science (using R software)", Ferdowsi University Press, Mashhad, Iran. ]In Persian[
  11. Jabari Nougabi, H. and Erfanian, M. (2018). "Sample size determination with PASS software", Ferdowsi University Press, Mashhad, Iran. ]In Persian[
  12. Kurt, S., (2009). “An analytic study on the traditional studio environments and the use of the constructivist studio in the architectural design education”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1, pp 401–408.
  13. Kvan, T., Yunyan, J., (2005). Students' learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio. Design Studies. 19-34.
  14. Litkohi, S, (2012). "Investigation of the relationship between the academic background of architecture students and their final project judgment", Scientific Association of Architecture and Urban Planning of Iran, No. 6, pp. 77-87. ]In Persian[
  15. Masoudinejad, S, (2018). "A model for evaluating architectural design workshop 1", Safa, No. 54, pp. 25-42. ]In Persian[
  16. Mirriahi, S, (2008). "A reflection on the method of evaluation and judgment in the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Adelaide, Australia", Safa, No. 47, pp. 43-50. ]In Persian[
  17. Mirriahi, S, (2013). "Assessment and evaluation in architecture education system with emphasis on team-based learning and peer evaluation", Arman Shahr Architecture and Urbanization, No. 13, pp. 107-117. ]In Persian[
  18. Mohammadi Balban Abad, S. and Iranmanesh, S. and Bemanian, M. (2008). "Investigating the role of evaluation in architecture education", Iran Engineering Education, No. 41, pp. 113-134. ]In Persian[
  19. Momtahen, M. and Nari Qomi, M. (2017). "Educational procedures in the types of education of architects; a case study: a review of the proposed educational options of the last decade (1386-1996) in Iranian architectural schools", Fine Arts - Architecture and Urban Planning, Volume 23, Number 3, pp. 53-68. ]In Persian[
  20. Nadimi, H, (2010). "A look at the evaluation of architectural designs", Safa, No. 50, pp. 9-19. ]In Persian[
  21. Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., D. Gross, M., Yi-Luen, E., (2013). “A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios”, Design Studies 34, pp 302-325.
  22. Otto, and (2014). "Architecture and critical thinking", translated by Amina Anjam Shua, art academy, Tehran, Iran. ]In Persian[ 
  23. Petry, E, (2002). “Architectural Education: Evaluation and Assessment”, 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA.
  24. Qaidi, M. and Golshani, A. (2015). "Content analysis method, from quantitative to qualitative", Psychological Methods and Models, No. 23, pp. 57-82. ]In Persian[
  25. Rezaei Ashtiani, S. and Mahdinejad, J. (2018). "Presenting a criteria-based educational evaluation model in architectural design studios", Education Technology, No. 3, pp. 458-441. ]In Persian[
  26. Sadram, and Nadimi, H, (2014). "The role of teacher's handwriting in design education", Safa, No. 68, pp. 5-18. ]In Persian[
  27. Salama, Ashraf M, (2005). “A Process Oriented Design Pedagogy: KFUPM Sophomore studio”, CEBT Transactions, Vol.2, Issue 2, pp 16-31 (16).
  28. Salama, Ashraf M, (2010). “Student Perceptions of the Architectural Design Jury”, International Journal of Architectural Research, Vol.4, Issues 2-3, pp 174-200.
  29. Sameh, R. and Yazidi, A. (2014). "Judging mechanism and design assessment in architectural education, proposing a model for process evaluation and project evaluation in teacher-student interaction", Scientific Association of Architecture and Urban Planning of Iran, No. 8, pp. 1-13. ]In Persian[
  30. Sardashti, S. and Shafaei, M. and Mozaffar, F. (2018). "Using critical education in the architectural education system (case study: a master's architecture design class of Gorgan Azad University)", Education Technology, Volume 13, Number 4, pp. 725-709. ]In Persian[
  31. Scagnetti, G, (2017). “A dialogical model for studio critiques in Design Education”, The Design Journal, Design for Next, 12th EAD Conference, Sapienza University of Rome, pp 5781-5791.
  32. Seymour, M. W., & CHANCE, S. M. (2010). “Assessment Formats: Student Preferences and Perceptions”, The International Journal of Learning, 17(10), 137-154. doi:10.21427/D7BW4S.
  33. Shannon, s.J, Woodbury, R, Roberts, I, (2011). “vGallery: web spaces for collaboration and assessment”, See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266456555.
  34. Sharif, H, (2011). "Critic's thinking and evaluation of the idea of architectural design", Safa, No. 52, pp. 53-64. ]In Persian[
  35. Utaberta, N., Hassanpour, B., Che Ani, A. I., Surat, M., (2011). “Reconstructing the Idea of Critique Session in Architecture Studio”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 18, pp 94–102.
  36. Utaberta, N., Hassanpour, B., Handryant, A.N., Che Ani, A.I., (2013). “Upgrading Education Architecture by Redefining Critique Session in Design Studio”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 102, pp 42 – 47.
  37. Valizadeh Oghani, M. and Azizi, A. (2017). "Architecture education; knowledge-based or test-based?! (with emphasis on technical and professional education)", specialized scientific quarterly of green architecture, number 13, pp. 41-54. ]In Persian[
  38. Wolffe, m., Defesche., A & LanS., W, (1999). “Valued Approach to the Assessment of Design Skills in Architectural Education: a pilot study”, Quality in Higher Education Vol. 5, No. 2, pp 132-125.
  39. Yazdani, S. and Khanmohammadi, M., (2010). "Education of architectural design (comparative study of retrospective approach and modern approach)", Abadi, No. 66, pp. 6-13. ]In Persian[
Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism(JIAU)
Volume 14, Issue 2
December 2023
Pages 399-418
Files
History
  • Receive Date: 19 January 2022
  • Revise Date: 14 April 2022
  • Accept Date: 29 June 2022
Share
How to cite
Statistics