نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری معماری اسلامی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی. دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

2 استادیار، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

3 استادیار، دانشکده هنر و معماری صبا، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان، کرمان، ایران.

چکیده

در حوزه خلاقیت، مطالعات متعددی در خصوص انواع محرک بین حوزه (تشابه ساختاری با مساله طراحی) و درون حوزه (مشابه با مساله طراحی) در مرحله ایده پردازی طراحی انجام شده است، با این وجود بررسی تأثیر تنوع یا عدم تنوع این نوع محرکها در خلاقیت دانشجویان چندان مورد توجه نبوده است. در کنار این موضوع، از آنجایی که هر نوع محرک بصری تأثیر متفاوتی در اندیشه واگرا و همگرا دارد در خصوص تفاوت این تأثیر در فرآیند طراحی دانشجویان، مطالعات محدودی انجام شده است. در این تحقیق، تأثیر تنوع محرک بصری در خلاقیت دانشجویان معماری و بر اندیشه های همگرا و واگرا مورد بررسی قرار می گیرد. در آزمونهای مورد نظر، محرک بین حوزه و درون حوزه به تنهایی و همین طور با هم (هم زمان یا با توالی زمانی) ارائه می شوند. آزمونها با دانشجویان درس طرح یک معماری در دانشگاه شهید باهنرکرمان صورت می گیرد. آنها اولین تجربه یک پروژه کامل طراحی را می گذرانند. سنجش خلاقیت از طریق ارزیابی محصول طراحی و نمرهای است که داوران به دو عامل "ابتکار " و "تحقق پذیری " می دهند. داده های حاصل توسط تحلیل واریانس بررسی میشود. نتایج حاکی از عدم تأثیر تنوع محرک در خلاقیت دانشجویان و تأثیر محرک درون حوزه به تنهایی، در ارتقاء ابتکار و تفکر واگرا است. هیچ کدام از انواع محرک دراندیشه همگرا و عامل تحقق پذیری تأثیر معناداری ندارند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Influence of Visual Stimulus Diversity on Students' Creativity at Architectural Design Studio 1

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Ali Ashraf Ganjouei 1
  • Mahmoud Reza Saghafi 2
  • Mohammad Iranmanesh 3

1 PhD. Candidate, Faculty of Architecture & Urban Design, Isfahan University of Art, Isfahan, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture & Urban Design, Isfahan University of Art, Isfahan, Iran

3 3Assistant Professor, Faculty of Arts & Architecture, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

چکیده [English]

Although there are different studies about the relation of within-domain and between domain stimuli with creativity, the impact of their variation has not been discussed. Moreover, there are just few studies concerning the relation between the different stimuli and divergent and convergent thinking in architecture students. The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of stimuli variation on students’ creativity as well as divergent and convergent thinking. In these experiments, between-domain and within-domain stimuli are used simultaneously, consecutively and alone. Participants are architecture students in “Architectural Design I” at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman. This course is their first design experience. The creativity of design products is scored. Judges grade originality and practicality for
each product. The outcomes are analyzed by ANOVA. The results demonstrate that variation has no effect on students’ creativity. divergent thinking and novelty are improved by using within-domain stimuli alone. In none of the experiments the practicality and convergent thinking have been affected.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Visual stimuli
  • creativity
  • architecture education
  • Design studio teaching
-      Ball LJ., Christensen BT. (2009). Analogical reasoning and mental simulation in design: two strategies linked to  uncertainty resolution, Design Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 169-186.
-      Casakin H. (2004). Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process: Expert versus novice performance, Journal of Design Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 124-142.
-      Casakin H. (2010). Visual analogy, visual displays, and the nature of design problems: the effect of expertise, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 170-188.
-      Christiaans HHCM, Van Andel J. (1993). The effects of examples on the use of knowledge in a student design activity: the case of the ‘flying Dutchman’, Design Studies, Vol. 14, No.1, pp. 58-74.
-      Christensen BT., Schunn CD. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: The case of engineering design, Memory & cognition, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 29-38.
-      Dixon RA. (2011). Experts and novices: Differences in their use of mental representation and metacognition in engineering design (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
-      Finke RA. (2014). Creative imagery: Discoveries and inventions in visualization, Psychology Press.
-      Guilford JP. (1967). The nature of Human Intelligence.
-      Goldschmidt G., Smolkov M. (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance, Design Studies, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 549-569.
-      Goldschmidt G., Sever AL. (2011). Inspiring design ideas with texts, Design Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 139-155.
-      Goldschmidt G. (2014). Modeling the role of sketching in design idea generation, In an anthology of theories and models of design, Springer London, pp. 433-450.
-      Heylighen A. (2000). In case of architectural design, Critique and praise of Case-Based Design in architecture.
-      Heylighen A., Verstijnen IM. (2003). Close encounters of the architectural kind, Design Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 313-326.
-      Holyoak KJ. (1985). The pragmatics of analogical transfer, Psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 19, pp. 59-87.
-      Holyoak KJ., Koh K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer, Memory & cognition, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 332-340.
-      Johnson-Laird PN (1989). Analogy and the exercise of creativity, Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, pp. 313-331.
-      Kalogerakis K., Lüthje C., Herstatt C. (2010). Developing innovations based on analogies: experience from design and engineering consultants, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 418-436.
-      Lindman HR. (2012). Analysis of variance in experimental design, Springer Science & Business Media.
-      Mohamed-Ahmed A., Bonnardel N., Côté P., Tremblay S. (2013). Cognitive load management and architectural design outcomes, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 160-176.
-      Mou TY., Ho CH. (2008). Novices' Satisfactory Design, Some implications for performance and satisficing in character design, In Design computing and cognition, Springer Netherlands, pp. 473-490.
-      Novick LR. (1988). Analogical transfer, problem similarity, and expertise, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 510.
-      Ozkan O., Dogan F. (2013). Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: Differences between expert and novice designers, Design Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 161-192.
-      Park JA., Kim YS., Cho JY. (2006). Visual reasoning as a critical attribute in design creativity, In Proceedings of International Design Research Symposium.
-      Sun L., Xiang W., Yang C., Yang Z., Lou Y. (2014). The role of sketching states in the stimulation of idea generation: An eye movement study, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 305-313.
-      Suwa M., Tversky B. (2003). Constructive perception: A metacognitive skill for coordinating perception and conception, In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston.
-      Tversky B., Chou JY. (2011). Creativity: depth and breadth, In Design Creativity 2010, Springer London, pp. 209-214.
-      Verstijinen IM., Heylighen A., Wagemans J., Neuckmans H. ( 2001). Sketching, analogies, and creativity on the shared research interests of psychologists and designers, in JS Gero, B Tversky and T Purcell (eds), Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design II, Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, Sydney: University of Sydney, 2001, pp. 299-310.
-      Verstijnen IM., Van Leeuwen C., Goldschmidt G., Hamel R., Hennessey JM. (1998). Sketching and creative discovery, Design studies, 19(4), 519-546.
-      Visser, W. (1996). Two functions of analogical reasoning in design: a cognitive-psychology approach, Design studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 417-434.
-      Vosniadou S., Ortony A. (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning: A synthesis, Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, Vol. 1, pp. 17.
-      Ward TB. (1998). Analogical distance and purpose in creative thought: Mental leaps versus mental hops, Advances in analogy research: Integration of theory and data from the cognitive, computational, and neural sciences, pp. 221-230.
-      Yukhina E. (2007). Cognitive abilities & learning styles in design processes and judgements of architecture students, Doctoral dissertation, The University of Sydney.
-      Zahner D., Nickerson JV., Tversky B., Corter JE., Ma J. (2010). A fix for fixation? Re representing and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, No. 02, pp. 231-244.