فرایند یادگیری مستمر و جامع وابسته به انتخاب شیوه آموزش مناسب در هر نظام آموزشی پیشرو است. فرایند آموزش جامع در امر تدریس از دو جنبه یادگیری و ارزیابی بررسی میشود. در این پژوهش جایگاه ارزیابی طرحهای معماری در فرآیند یادگیری و ارتقای توان علمی دانشجویان بررسی میشود. روش تحقیق از نوع آمیخته (کمی –کیفی) باهدف کاربردی است. جامعهی آماری متشکل از 15 مدرس از اعضای هیئتعلمی متخصص رشته معماری در دانشگاههای شهید بهشتی، تهران، علم و صنعت و شهید چمران اهواز میباشند. نمونهگیری بهصورت سامانمند و غیر تصادفی انجام و نظر به اینکه یکی از عوامل مهم در ارزشیابی آموزشی عملاً خود دانشجویان میباشند ترجیح داده شد که نظرات دانشجویان هم درزمینهی ارزشیابی طرحهای معماری گرفته شود. بر این اساس دانشجویان آتلیه طرح معماری (3)، کارشناسی ارشد دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد اهواز بهعنوان جامعه آماری انتخاب شدند. ابزار جمعآوری دادهها از طریق پرسشنامه طیف لیکرت است. تجزیهوتحلیل آماری نتایج با کمک نرمافزار SPSS و بهکارگیری آزمون همبستگی اسپیرمن برای سنجش مدل پژوهش و ارزیابی اعتبار آن و از آزمون فریدمن برای اولویتبندی متغیرها استفاده شد. امتیازدهی خبرگان در ارزشیابی نهایی پروژهها محاسبه گردید. نتایج حاصل از پرسشنامهها در تهیه راهکارهای پیشنهادی و امتیازدهی معیارها و ضوابط داوری پروژههای طراحی معماری مؤثر هستند. نتایج پژوهش نشان میدهد که مطالعات و دانش فنی، با بالاترین ضریب همبستگی معنیدار بیشترین رابطه را با محصول نهایی داشته است و بعدازآن مهارت طراحی، پیشبرد روند طراحی و دانش اولیه قرار دارند. نتایج آزمون رتبهبندی فریدمن نشان داد که زیرمولفه تحلیل و تفسیر نتایج محصول نهایی،تکنیک نحوه ارائه و ماکت بالاترین رتبه و مهمترین زیرمولفههای مرتبط با ارزشیابی طرحهای معماری هستند. شاخص وزنی 5 مؤلفه اصلی تاثیرگذار بر داوری طرحهای نهایی بر اساس آزمون رتبهبندی زیرمولفهها به ترتیب محصول نهایی، مطالعه و دانش فنی، مهارت طراحی، پیشبرد روند طراحی و دانش اولیه است.
عنوان مقاله [English]
Explaining the Judgment Strategies of Architectural Designs and its Role in the Process of Students’ Learning
Background and Objectives: A continuous and comprehensive learning process depends on the proper teaching method in every pioneer education system. Evaluation of architectural designs judges about the design. It measures the ratio of variable criteria in the design from the desired aspect and then judges about it. Due to the pivotal role of judgment in the curriculum of architecture field, if the type of judgment is not clear and the space governing the criticism or judgment is not provided, the possibility of unsuccessful entrance to personal interpretations or unrelated demands to educational goals may distort this judgment and the students’ ground for growth and talents will be destroyed. If the judgment criteria are known, the possibility of their gradual quantitative and qualitative growth is provided and increases the scope of the specialized understanding treasury in the system of architectural education and the method of its representation. The present research was conducted with the aim of recognizing the indicators and criteria affecting the evaluation of university architectural designs, as a part of the student’ learning process and providing a better evaluation method that is more accurate and more objective. The comprehensive education process in teaching is investigated in terms of learning and assessment. In the current study, the position of assessment of the architectural designs in the process of learning and improving the scientific strength of students is investigated.
Methods: The research method is of mixed-method (qualitative-quantitative) with the aim of application. The statistical population is 15 faculty members of Architecture Discipline in the Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran University, Iran University of Science and Industry, and the Shahid Chamran University of Ahwaz. Sampling is done using a systematic non-random sampling method and wereselected according to the educational fields. Due to the importance of scoring and its direct effect on the research results, sampling was done in a systematic and non-random manner. considering that one of the most important factors in the educational assessment is the students, it was preferred that the opinions of students be considered in the assessment of architectural designs. Therefore, master students of Architectural Design Atelier (3) of Islamic Azad University, Ahwaz Branch were selected as the statistical population. Data collection data was done using a Likert scale questionnaire. In order to assess the research model, 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 calculated in the final assessment of the architectural design projects. The results obtained from the questionnaires are effective in the provision of proposed strategies and scoring the criteria and judgment rules of the architectural design projects.
Findings: showed that there is 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 and this component has been the most important factor and the most effective factor on the final product. Afterwards is design skills, advancing the design process, 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 of analysis and interpretation of final results, presentation technique and replica have the highest average rank and shows that these sub-components have been the most important sub-component affecting the judgment of university projects. Then there is the idea of design, creativity and form of the building, what the subject is 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. Weight index of 5 main components affecting the judgment of final designs based on the sub-component ranking test are final product, study and technical knowledge, design skill, advancing the design process, and primary knowledge, respectively.
Conclusion: Based on the conducted studies, it seems that evaluation has an important and valuable place in the learning process that if students are dissatisfied with it, it will have a devastating effect on their learning. In this regard, it was suggested to hold sessions as "learner-centered" to evaluate the design process during the semester and increase students’ learning. Considering that students gave the highest score to learning in classroom evaluation, specialization and roundtable discussion, it is better that in the initial sessions of design lessons, two or three professors hold their design classes in a collaborative manner and invite professional architects as experts in the profession and to make students more familiar with the labor market. To reduce the student's confusion after the initial class sessions and the student’s familiarity with the professors' viewpoints, the student chooses his desired professor among the professors of the studio and advance his design process with him. It is better to hold classroom evaluation sessions in a participatory and roundtable manner and students of various levels attend the classroom. In this research, strategies for architectural designs judgment and reducing students' stress and worries and increasing their self-confidence are suggested to architecture design professors and decision makers in this field results through which students' designs are judged, and policy makings are done to promote the level of architecture education and ultimately train students and efficient architects.