Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism(JIAU)

Abstract Extended Abstract
Background 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.

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.

Abstract Extendedd Abstract
Objective and Background: Novice designers in design workshops are constantly finding themselves on the quest for an elegant solution to design problems. Still, a large portion of educators and professors are not able to, or willing to, define a distinct course for this quest, thus leading to problems of disorientation for these novice designers. However, it is noteworthy that the paths and processes for reaching such an ideal are absolutely unique to each designer, as at least some part of this process is intuitive and exploratory. Thus no same pattern can be handed out to all designers. Yet, this does not mean that students and novice designers can obtain their design formula without any external guidance from their instructors and relying only on inner instinct.
Methods: This study seeks to provide a clear and systematic model based on the previously discussed design records to prevent plagiarism and assist novice designers in solving the design problem, especially in response to the aesthetic aspects of the design that do not have any explicit assessment criteria. Considering that the causal relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable is examined in this research, and the independent research variable, i.e., the educational model provided for teaching architectural design, can be manipulated by the researcher, this research is a quasi-experimental study. For this purpose, firstly, 28 students from the 4th semester of architecture were divided into two groups of control and experiment. The control group members then performed the desired exercise (study desk design) without using design records and only based on previous experiences. At the same time, the experimental group members were offered the proposed model and were free to use the design records. In the next stage, students’ schemas were scored using the self-assessment method, and the opinion of experts (professors of architecture) and the data were analyzed.
Findings: The path that scientists of different fields take to solve the problem, no matter how difficult and challenging, ultimately has a very clear and well-structured nature. However, the same is not valid for the design problem. This effect is more pronounced in the early works of novice designers. It is given that the various paths and stages of this process cannot be clearly observed and explained. In fact, the designer’s mind shapes new designs within mind what is perceived from nature, geometry, and samples of previous works, among others, by analyzing and combining elements therein. It can be argued that designing would not be simply feasible without having an intellectual archive of design resources in mind. The experience of facing design problems is critically involved in achieving their solutions. As such, novice designers and students who lack sufficient experience may be easily disoriented in solving design problems. Meanwhile, examples of prior works and projects, scientifically known as design records, are the most extensively used resources by designers, especially novice ones. Without a clear pattern and framework for exploiting these design records, risks such as tumbling into the trap of plagiarism and blind adherence to the teacher’s approach threaten the design, leading to their repressed skills development.
Conclusion: Design problems, unlike problems within the realm of experimental science, are mostly struck with poor structures and have ill-defined nature. There are no concrete paths and predefined frameworks for solving design problems. The main purpose of this study was to propose an approach to changing the nature of ill-structured design problems to a relatively well-structured one and thus employing the use of it in training novice designers. This goal was followed by proposing a model for framing the design problem using examples from previous design works. It should be noted that still the ultimate goal of the present study was to discover solutions for better learning and improving the skills of novice designers, rather than achieving an innovative and perfect design. The results of this study revealed that designing based on the proposed model alleviates the confusion of the novice designer especially in the early stages of working on design problems, while encourages facing the challenges of improving design skills, all of which is achieved by employing such a clear and systematic way. Nonetheless, the comparison of the works of the tested students showed better results and yielded higher scores for the group that developed their design using the proposed framework. Moreover, employing the proposed model reduced the probability of plagiarism and led to increased variety in the experimental group's schemas. The results showed that the experimental group's schemata compared with the schemata of the control group, received a higher average score. Using the proposed model reduced the probability of imitation and increased diversity in the experimental group schemas.

Abstract Arab bazaar of Ahvaz city is located in the vicinity of the downtown bazaar and on the sidelines of Karun River. The bazaar's physical structure is formed by the shops and commercial units around an axis. The bazaar users are mostly Arabs and their behavior relate to the  patterns in this bazaar. These behavior patterns are extracted from the Arab bazaar in Ahvaz city. These patterns are not correspondent with the physical structure of the bazaar and therefore lead to irregularity and disturbances in this bazaar. Most of these disturbances are because of changes in the bazaar's physical structure. This change in the primary structure has expanded to the internal boundaries of bazaar and is formed based on the informal structure inside of the formal structure. The informal structure is very different from the formal structure. Hence, the main question is, how the user's behavior patterns can be synonymous with the physical structure? To answer this question, the Arab bazaar's physical structure and business behavior of the users were considered with systematic approach, and each were examined in 3 levels of the bazaar. The bazaar's physical structure was examined with a survey and descriptive methods. Also, user's behavior was studied with performance zone model and ethnographic method. The observation and recording of behavior was done based on the relationships between the two roles of "buyer" and "seller". With this, current behavior pattern were extracted. The patterns of these behaviors were classified in three categories: the relationship between the buyer and the buyer, the buyer with the seller and the seller with seller. Each of these behavioral patterns lead to changes in the physical structure of the market and has formed an informal structure. The design guides are in 3 levels, based on the findings regarding the traits creating the informal structure and its impact on market structure. First, the behaviors' forms and their patterns are examined for testing of the design guideline. Then their impact is checked on the physical structure. Finally, rules, norms, measures in design guideline are tested for assessing proportionalte physical structure with regards to behavioral patterns. The design guidelines can be used as a controller in the design process and control outputs of the design process based on behavioral patterns.