Shima Mehrad; Omid Dezhdar; GHolamreza Talischi
Abstract
Extended AbstractBackground and Objectives: There are multiple challenges in teaching and learning the basic architectural design studio, since students are at their novice skill level, ...
Read More
Extended AbstractBackground and Objectives: There are multiple challenges in teaching and learning the basic architectural design studio, since students are at their novice skill level, and they are unfamiliar with the nature of the design knowledge and the interaction with their teachers. The most important activity in these studios, which leads to developing the students’ novice design skills, is the “teacher-student interactions” during the student’s progress. “Donald Schon”, a philosopher and researcher in the field of design education, has described one of the main theories in teaching the design studios. The results of Schon’s research show that “action with reflection” is the main knowledge-making factor in the studio. According to Schon’s theory, different levels of reflection take place in the context of teacher-student interaction. For this reason, it is necessary to analyze these interactions to improve and facilitate education in basic design studios. Understanding the different aspects of these interactions as well as their effective components can be operative in improving the training of novice designers.Methods: Linkography method is the latest and most accurate method to analyze the designer’s way of thinking when faced with a design problem by analyzing design sessions. 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 protocols and then accepted by other researchers. A linkograph illustrates the design movements and the relationship between the designs. In this method, what has happened audibly between the teacher 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 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 the designers’ thinking. In this research, linkography method is applied to scrutinize and analyze the interactions between novice students and their teachers in the basic architectural design studio.Findings: The results show that establishing positive and constructive interactions between the teacher and students improves the students’ design skills and facilitates their brainstorming. The context in which the “dialogue” between the teacher and the novice students takes place can provide the conditions for this type of interaction. In general, the teacher takes the lead in the studio in three roles: friend, coach, and commander. As a friend, the teacher always encourages the student’s performance positively, and this leads to a permanent agreement between the two. However, this type of communication rarely improves the design ability of the novice student and is more effective in expanding the social and emotional connections. As a commander, the teacher treats the students based on competence and power. In this case, the students try to fulfill the teacher’s wishes without hesitation to attract attention or avoid reprimand. As a result, their design skills do not improve, and if a positive result is achieved in the design process, this result belongs to the teacher and not the student. As a coach, the main teacher’s task is to guide, advise and facilitate. By having sufficient experience and knowledge, the teacher anticipates the problem situation and guides the student to face these situations. At the same time, there is a space for conversation, and the students can explain their ideas and opinions. Placing the teacher and the student in such a situation creates positive interactions, and the process of reflection in practice is realized in a context of positive interactions.Conclusion: Providing the context for establishing positive and constructive interactions in the basic architectural design studio depends on the emergence of individual and behavioral components of the teacher’s and the student’s behavior. The results of the present study have identified and introduced these components. For the students, components such as: culture, background, knowledge, experience, visual and spatial perception, gender, and values are effective in interactions. For the teachers, components such as: culture, knowledge, experience, and values are influential. The behavioral components of the teacher and the student are also different. Based on Schon’s text analysis and the results of the analysis of the session, the “good student” has behavioral characteristics such as: Trusting the teacher, Having practical attention and listening to the teacher, Discounting their previous ideas, Showing reflective imitation of the teacher’s performance, Admiring the teacher (not for attention or the fear of reprimand, but because of merits), Recognizing the teacher as a source of knowledge and competence, Showing mutual respect.The teacher also has different behavioral components and plans in the studio. As mentioned in the previous section, the effective teacher’s role in establishing fruitful interactions is the “coaching role”. The teacher’s presence as a guide in the studios leads to a dialogue between the teacher and the novice students. The conversation about the progress of the design project is an important part of the interaction between the teacher and the student. Hence, the behavioral components of the “coaching role” are:Guidance and supervision, facilitation, Creating a safe ambiance for the student to explain their opinions and ideas, Not using the monophonic instruments of power, Avoiding hierarchy, Predicting possible future situations in the design process, Creating equal opportunities in conversation, Reflecting on student practice, Not giving explicit expression of positions and desires (because the subconscious leads to imitation of a novice student without reflection).
