Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism(JIAU)

Abstract Extended Abstract Background and Objectives: In the process of educating students in the basic design studio, it is essential to develop skills in study, planning formation, architectural creation of an idea, and social interaction. Therefore, effective education that facilitates learning while simultaneously enhancing the students’ ability to design and collaborate in building knowledge in the Architectural Basic Design Studio is crucial. There is a recognized need to explain the collaborative education model as a support for architectural activities and objectives. The key question is: what educational methods are involved in the collaborative architecture learning model in the basic design studio? The aim is to clarify this model in the context of architectural basic design studio. According to previous research, various collaborative learning methods across disciplines, especially in theoretical courses, have been shown to produce positive learning outcomes. However, the present study specifically seeks to explain the collaborative learning model for basic design studio, an area where research findings are less documented. According to the research aim and questions, this study focuses on identifying both collaborative learning methods and suitable activities for the architectural basic design studio.
Methods: A qualitative research strategy and an action research method were used in this study. The research process involves the cycle of cognition and recognition, model suggestion, model application, performance observation, and the explanation of the collaborative education model in the architectural basic design studio. Data collection techniques include document and bibliographic analysis, such as books and articles on collaborative and architectural education, and observation methods, including note-taking as an instructor, photographs, and videos during the model’s implementation in the architectural basic design studio. Data analysis and interpretation are conducted in three steps. Data analysis and interpretation consists of three steps. Data is categorized and hypotheses are formed. Conceptual codes of architectural education control indicators and collaborative education activities were defined and general review and corrections were implemented in the model.
Findings: In the first session, the instructor should explain the methods and benefits of collaborative learning in both architecture education and the profession. This includes explaining the methods and goals of the design studio, the importance of collaboration in architectural design, the student assessment process, and the promotion of both individual and collective abilities. It is possible to change the layout based on the training method and for modeling activities, presenting posters and various items in the space of design studios. The collaborative learning model was applied in the architectural basic design studio III. Based on observations and evaluations, three criteria were used to measure success: how information was received, creating space by expanding data, and the level of collaboration Five people participated in the creativity test in the pre-test stage, and after training in participatory methods in the middle of the creativity test, participation in production and presentation reached 100%. To assess students’ understanding of building analysis, a descriptive test was conducted using images of buildings, with two of the ten buildings not discussed in the studio. Sixty-one percent of students analyzed all of the buildings, while the remaining students analyzed an average of 75%. In the final exam, 79% of students participated in the presentation and construction. The teaching methods showed good variety, aligning well with architectural education practices and contributing to improved learning outcomes for architecture students.
Conclusion: The collaborative learning model in the architectural basic design studio is divided into four parts: brainstorming, group discussion, jigsaw, and evaluation. Creativity testing, building analysis, and volume and space design activities are carried out within the framework of these methods. Collaboration among all students is essential for understanding the content. Therefore, participation in studies, model design, building analysis, and sketches by all students in the studio is mandatory, with critiques from the entire group. In building analysis questions and answers, isolated students should be encouraged to actively participate. At the beginning of the semester, students are introduced to collaborative learning methods such as brainstorming and group discussion on architectural design topics, helping them to better understand each other’s ideas and professional skills. In the second half of the semester, the jigsaw method is introduced, where each student builds and completes part of the final project. All students work toward the same goal, fostering a sense of responsibility both to themselves and their peers. Critical and creative thinking is promoted when students’ designs are interconnected, allowing them to critique each other’s work. It is recommended to reiterate t assessments at the beginning and middle of the semester, because the content of the lesson and teaching strategies can be changed by using the pre-test and recognizing the students’ abilities. This approach enhances student motivation, helps them better evaluate themselves and their peers, and enables the teacher to more accurately assess learning progress and the effectiveness of teaching methods. The final evaluation involves completing and critiquing the design, presentation, and collaboration. In the design studio, a deeper understanding of the problem can be achieved by expanding knowledge and clarifying ambiguous or complex aspects.

Abstract Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: A continuous and comprehensive learning process depends on the proper teaching method in every pioneer education system. The evaluation process of architectural designs is meant to judge the designs. It measures the ratio of variable criteria in the design from the desired aspect and then evaluates it. Due to the pivotal role of judgment in the architecture curriculum, if the evaluation process is unclear and no productive criticism ambiance is provided, personal interpretations or unrelated demands to educational goals may distort the judgment process and prevent the flourishment of the students’ development and talents. If the judgment criteria are known, the students’ gradual quantitative and qualitative progression will be achieved, increasing their scope of the understanding of the architectural education system and its representation method. The present research was conducted to recognize the indicators and criteria affecting the evaluation of university architectural designs as a part of the student’s learning process to provide a better evaluation method that is more accurate and objective. The comprehensive education process in teaching is investigated in learning and assessment. In the current study, the role of the architectural design evaluation in learning and improving students’ scientific knowledge is investigated.
Methods: This research uses a mixed-method (qualitative-quantitative), and it is considered applied research. The statistical population comprises 15 faculty members at Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran University, Iran University of Science and Technology, and Shahid Chamran University of Ahwaz. A systematic, non-random sampling method was applied, and the samples were selected according to the educational fields due to the importance of scoring and its direct effect on the research results. Bearing in mind that students are one of the most important factors in the evaluation process, the students’ opinions were considered in the architectural design evaluation. Therefore, the master’s students of Architectural Design (3) of Islamic Azad University, Ahwaz Branch, were selected as the statistical population. Data was collected using a Likert scale questionnaire. In order to assess the research model, the results were analyzed using SPSS software and applying the Spearman Correlation Test, and in order to assess its validity, the Friedman test was used to prioritize the variables. Experts’ grading was considered in the final assessment of the architectural design projects. The results obtained from the questionnaires effectively provide proposed strategies and score the criteria and judgment rules of the architectural design projecects.
Findings: The research findings showed a significant difference between 4 components affecting the final product. The impact ratio of each one on the final product is different. The results showed that studies and technical knowledge, with a correlation coefficient of 0.535 and a significance level of 0.04, have the highest impact on the final product. This component has been the most important and effective factor in the final product. The other effective factors are design skills, design process development, and initial knowledge. The initial knowledge component has the least impact on the final product compared to other components. The results of Friedman’s ranking test showed that the sub-component in the analysis and interpretation of final results, presentation technique, and replica has the highest average rank. These sub-components have been the most important sub-component affecting the judgment of university projects. Then there is the design idea, creativity and form of the building, the subject, and the ability to analyze and present. The results show that these sub-components have the highest impact on the final judgment of the designs compared to other sub-components. And the sub-components of the impact ratio of planning and functional design and oral presentation have the least impact on the final judgment of the designs. The weighted index of 5 main components affecting the judgment of final designs based on the ranking of sub-component tests is the final product, study and technical knowledge, design skill, design process development, and primary knowledge, respectively.
Conclusion: According to the conducted studies, evaluation seems to have an important and valuable place in the learning process. If students are dissatisfied with this process, it will have a devastating effect on their learning. In this regard, holding “learner-centered” sessions was suggested to evaluate the design process during the semester and increase students’ learning. Since the highest scores were given to learning in classroom evaluation, specialization, and roundtable discussion, it is recommended that the professors collaboratively hold their design classes and invite professional architects as experts to make students more familiar with the market in the initial sessions. The students should be able to choose their professor among the studio professors to reduce the student’s confusion after the initial class sessions and the student’s familiarity with the professors’ viewpoints. It is better to hold classroom evaluation sessions in a participatory and roundtable manner, and students of various levels attend the classrooms. This research suggests strategies for professors and decision-makers for architectural design judgment, reducing students’ stress and worries and increasing their self-confidence in the architecture design studio. Suggestions for architectural evaluation and policy making are made to promote the level of architecture education and ultimately train students and competent architects.