Roya Sadeghi Fereshteh; Omid Dezhdar; Sara Jalalian; Hosein Ardalani
Abstract
Extended AbstractBackground and Objectives: Design is a complex and vital human creative activity, requiring unique capacities and knowledge. Research in design has been around for ...
Read More
Extended AbstractBackground and Objectives: Design is a complex and vital human creative activity, requiring unique capacities and knowledge. Research in design has been around for several decades in ways. While early studies focused on practical design methods, recent research delves into the intricate aspects of design work, problem-solving, and the design process itself. This article aims to explore the nature of design knowledge and to build knowledge within a constructive learning settings through a constructivist lens, using qualitative methods and theoretical analysis. The central questions are: What is the nature of design knowledge from a constructivist learning perspective, and how can one acquire design knowledge in a constructivist learning environment? 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: This study employed a qualitative approach, utilizing the Grounded Theory research technique to gain a deep understanding of “nature of design knowledge from a constructivist learning “perspective. Data collection methods included document reviews of articles from credible international journals (e.g., Design Studies, Architectural Research, Architectural Education), as well as Iranian researchers, interviews with esteemed professors in the field of architecture education, and on-site observations during Architectural Design Workshops 2 and 3 over two semesters. MAXQDA software was used for data analysis. The analysis consisted of three coding phases: one for the literature review, one for interview data, and one for field observations. The field study incorporated an observation method, offering a detailed description of design knowledge based on a model by David William Shaffer (2003) derived from the MIT University design workshop (Shaffer, 2003). 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. Professionals also embody their design knowledge through their work, which grows through experience, repetition, and skill acquisition. In a constructivist learning environment, knowledge develops during teacher-student interactions, allowing students to engage with their personal knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes. This approach emphasizes the learning process and the thought processes involved in design, rather than just the final product. In the 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 applied by designers 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 is distinct from other bodies of knowledge and can be acquired by specific means. Most of the time, this body of knowledge is unconscious and challenging to articulate. 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, the way knowledge is acquired is obtained by changing the conduct of work. The nature of design knowledge hinges on practical tasks and the individual’s unique capacities, evolving with experience, context, and the stages of its acquisition.Conclusion: The nature of design knowledge, like the pre-determined bodies of knowledge in the education system, is individualized and must be constructed by the learner within the classroom. Thus, each person’s previous knowledge and experience is a prerequisite to building a new body of knowledge. Interaction with peers and dialogue about the design process are essential for building 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 to raise each other’s knowledge level. In a constructivist approach, the goal of learning is not to transmit knowledge from one source to another. Learning environments avoid imposing restrictions on pre-established knowledge. The constructivist approach to knowledge closely aligns with the essence of design knowledge. Consequently, an improved constructive learning environment can significantly contribute to the development of design knowledge in architectural workshops. An optimal teaching approach for an architectural design workshop involves adopting the constructive method. The activities within these workshops align with the design process, particularly addressing design challenges, where the emphasis lies on the problem-solving journey. Design tasks incorporating constructivist principles should be real and authentic. This entails meeting not only the requirements set by professional designers but also considering the unique abilities of each student. The teacher’s role extends beyond mere knowledge transfer; instead, they act as a mentor and facilitator within the workshop, where the student takes the responsibility of shaping the design process and making solutions. During design process instruction, the teacher can guide students by explaining and interpreting the design, helping them recognize the concepts they have formulated. This is achieved through active dialogue, questioning, and encouragement to reflect on their designs. Consequently, students articulate their plans consciously, with the teacher taking on a supportive role rather than being the primary explainer.
