نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری معماری، گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، واحد همدان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، همدان، ایران.

2 استادیار، گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، واحد همدان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، همدان، ایران.

3 استادیار، گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر و معماری، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا همدان، همدان، ایران.

چکیده

اصلی‌ترین فعالیت درکارگاه طراحی معماری که منجر به رشد توانایی طراحی در دانشجویان مبتدی می‌شود، تعامل و نقد استاد-دانشجو پیرامون پروژه درحال پیشرفت دانشجو است. در کارگاه‌های طراحی معماری پایه به دلیل قرارگیری دانشجو در سطح مهارتی مبتدی، ناآشنایی او‌ با ماهیت دانش‌طراحی و نیز چگونگی تعامل با استاد، همواره چالش‌هایی درزمینه‌ی آموزش و یادگیری وجود دارد. بدیهی است که تحلیل و بررسی کیفیت تعاملات استاد-دانشجو می‌تواند به تسهیل آموزش در کارگاه طراحی مبتدی کمک نماید. جدیدترین و دقیق‌ترین شیوه در تحلیل نحوه تفکرطراحان حین مواجه با مسئله طراحی، آنالیز جلسات طراحی به کمک روش لینکوگرافی است. در این شیوه آنچه در طول جلسه نقد طراحی بین استاد ‌و‌ دانشجو به‌صورت شنیداری رخ می‌دهد، مکتوب شده و متن به دست آمده به شیوه (FBS) کدگذاری می‌شود. در کدگذاری به شیوه FBS کدها مسائل طراحانه هستند و ارتباط آن‌ها باهم فرآیندهایی از طراحی را تعریف می‌کند. لینکوگرافی روشی است که ارتباط مفهومی بین کدها را به ارائه مصور تبدیل کرده و ازاین‌رو امکان تحلیل و شناسایی نحوه تفکر طراحان را فراهم می‌کند. در این پژوهش کاربرد روش لینکوگرافی به‌منظور تحلیل تعاملات تعدادی از دانشجویان مبتدی با استاد در کارگاه طراحی پایه مورد بررسی قرار گرفته ‌است. نتایج این پژوهش نشان می‌دهند که برقراری تعاملات مثبت و سازنده میان استاد-دانشجوی‌مبتدی باعث رشد توانایی طراحی دانشجویان و سهولت ایده‌پردازی توسط آن‌ها می‌شود. آنچه شرایط را برای بروز این نوع تعاملات فراهم می‌کند، به‌وجود آمدن زمینه‌ای است که به‌موجب آن «گفتگو و دیالوگ» میان استاد-دانشجوی‌ مبتدی محقق شود. فراهم آمدن این زمینه به ظهور مؤلفه‌هایی فردی و رفتاری از استاد و دانشجو وابسته است که نتایج پژوهش حاضر این مؤلفه‌ها را شناسایی و معرفی نموده است. باتوجه به این مطالب، کاربرد نتایج حاصل از پژوهش حاضرتسهیل آموزش در کارگاه‌های مبتدی خواهد ‌بود.

تازه های تحقیق

- شناخت مولفه‌های موثر بر آموزش در کارگاه پایه از طریق تحلیل مولفه‌های رفتاری و فردی استاد -دانشجو.
- آنالیز جلسات طراحی و کاربرد روش لینکوگرافی در تحلیل تعاملات استاد- دانشجوی مبتدی.
- تحلیل و بررسی نحوه تفکر طراحان به کمک روش لینکوگرافی.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Application of Linkography method to analyze the teacher-student interactions in the basic architectural design studio

نویسندگان [English]

  • Shima Mehrad 1
  • Omid Dezhdar 2
  • GHolamreza Talischi 3

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Architecture, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor , Department of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, , Bualisina University Of Hamedan, Hamedan, Iran

چکیده [English]

Extended Abstract
Background 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).

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Design Studio
  • Teacher-Student Interaction
  • Critique Desk
  • Linkography

 این مقاله برگرفته از رساله دکتری نویسنده نخست با عنوان «تحلیل تعاملات استاد- دانشجوی مبتدی در کارگاه طراحی معماری، مبتنی بر نظریه شون» می‌باشد که به راهنمایی نویسنده دوم و مشاوره نویسنده سوم در دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد همدان انجام گرفته است.

This article is derived from the first author`s doctoral thesis entitled “Analysis of Tutor & Novice Students Interactions In Architectural Design Studio, According To The Schön’s theory ”, supervised by the second authors and advised by the third, at Islamic Azad University Hamedan branch.

  1. Architecture and Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, Australia.
  2. Argris, C. (1981). Teaching and learning in design settings. Architecture Education Study. New York: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
  3. Austerlitz, N. and Aravot, I. 2007. Emotions of architecture students: a new perspective for the design studio. Salama, A. M. and Wilkinson, N. Eds. Design studio pedagogy: horizons for the future. Gateshead: The Urban International Press. 233- 45.
  4. Bose, M. (1997). Methods of Studio instruction: Hidden Agendas and Implicit Assumption.
  5. Cross, N, 1995. Observations of Teamwork and Social Processes in Design. Design Studies 12 ( 2 ): 143 – 170.
  6. Cross, N, 2004. Expertise in Design: an Overview. Design Studies, Vol 25, No 5, pp 427–441.
  7. Dezhdar,O.Etesam and slami.2013. Pathology of Studio Learning Process Based on Analysis of Donald Schön's Research on Design Studios. Jurnal. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(8)591-598.
  8. Dinham, S.M. (1987b). An ongoing qualitative study of architecture studio teaching: analyzing teacher–student exchanges. Proc. ASHE Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, November 21–24.
  9. Dorst, K. 2002. Describing Design: A Comparison of Paradigms. Rotterdam: Delft University. PhD.
  10. Dutton, T. A. (ed.) (1991). Voices in  architectural education: Cultural politics and  pedagogy. New York, NY: Bergin and Garvey
  11. Dutton, T. A. (ed.) (1991). Voices in architectural education: Cultural politics and pedagogy. New York, NY: Bergin and Garvey.
  12. Gero, J., S., Pourmohamadi, M., Williams, C. (2012) the Effect of Employing Different Design Methods on Design Cognition, Articulating Design Thinking, Sydney.
  13. Gero, J.S, Jiang, H, 2014. Comparing the Design Cognition of Concept Design. Reviews of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering Designers. Purdue University, DTRS 10: Design Thinking Research Symposium .
  14. Gero, J.S, Kan, J.w, Purmohamadi, M, 2011. Analysing Design Protocols: Development of Methods and Tools. international conference. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 10-12 January.
  15. Goldschmidt, G. (2010). The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24, 285–302.
  16. Heylighen, A., Neuckerinans, H., and Bouwen, J. (1999). Walking on a thin line - Between Passive Knowledge and active Knowing of Components and Concepts in Architectural Design. Design Studies, 20(2), 211-235.
  17. Kan , J. W. T. , and J. S. Gero . 2006 . Acquiring Information from Linkography in Protocol Studies of Designing. Design Studies 29 ( 4 ): 315 – 337 .
  18. Koach, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T. A., & Smith, D. (2012). The design of studio culture: A report of the AIAS studio culture task force, The American Institute of Architecture Students.
  19. Monson, J. (2014). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
  20. Ochsner, J. K. 2000. Behind the mask: a psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio.Journal of Architectural Education, 53(4),194-206.
  21. Pourmohamadi, M, 2013. Designerly Ways of Customising. A thesis of PHD, Faculty of
  22. Pourmohamadi, M, Gero, J.S, 2011. LINKOgrapher: An Analysis Tool to Study Design Protocols Based on FBS Coding Scheme. International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED11, 15 - 18 August, Technical University of Denmark.
  23. Quayle, M. (1985). Idea book for teaching design. Mesa; Arizona, PDA Publisher Corporation.
  24. Rahimian, F., Ibrahim, R., (2013). Behavioural Design Protocols in Architectural Design Studios: A Microscopic Analysis .Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 21 (1), 235 – 258.
  25. Robin S. Adams & Tiago Forin(2015). Characterizing the work of coaching during design reviews. School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
  26. Rogers, Julies. (1996)The concept of framing and its role in teacher – student negotiation during desk critiques in the architectural design studio. the university of Texas. PhD
  27. Saghafi,M.R & Franz.J & Crowther.PH.(2010). Crossing the Cultural Divide: A Contemporary Holistic Framework for Conceptualising Design Studio Education. 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN EDUCATION. UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA.
  28. Salama, A.M., & Wilkinson, N. (Eds.). (2007). Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Gateshead: Urban International Press.
  29. Schön, D. A. 1985. The Design Studio. An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials. London: RIBA Publications.
  30. Schon, D.: 1983,The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books,New York.
  31. Schon, D.: 1987, Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for Teaching in the Professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
  32. Webster,H.(2008). Architectural Education after Schön: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and Beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, Vol. 3, Issue 2, December 2008 pp. 63-74 (12).
  33. Wendler, V.W., & Rogers, J.S. (1995). The design life space: verbal communication in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 12(4), 319–335.