Achieving an Effective Teaching Model in Architectural Education; Case Study: Architectural Design Basics Two

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Architecture, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Design, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Associate Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

4 Associate Professor of Education, Faculty of Humanity and Social Science, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.

Abstract

Learning process is of great importance in architecture courses, especially for the newcomers. The main issue of the present study is achieving an effective instructional pattern for teaching architecture and “Architectural Design Basics” have been considered herein as the case study. The proper patterns of instructing preparatory architectural designing lessons were identified through exploring the various teaching patterns in the area of educational sciences and architecture teaching. Then, changes were made in line with these lessons’ goals to attain a teaching pattern and its specifications based on the intragroup professor-student collaboration (IPSC). The current research has been conducted to investigate this pattern in teaching preparatory architectural designing II and its completion and correction as well as its transformation to an effective instructional method. To do so, use was made of the qualitative research method of grounded theory so that the strong and weak points of this pattern can be better recognized. The study population included the students who had taken the preparatory architectural designing II lessons in two universities in Mazandaran. The reason for selecting this population is the familiarity with the environmental conditions due to the researcher’s history of teaching in them. The information-gathering instruments in this study are observation, questionnaire, and interview. The study results signified the increase in the students’ motivation, meeting the need for the students’ approval and collaboration in this method and its effectiveness on the group activities. Amongst the other advantages obtained as a result of the professor’s presence in the group, the importance of asking for the students’ ideas, the correct task division in the group and more importance of the learning process with respect to the product can be pointed out.

Keywords

References

Durling, R., & Schick, C. (1976). Concept Attainment by Pairs and Individuals as a Function of Vocalization. Journal of Educational Psychology. 68 (1), 83–91. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-06149-001
Felder, R.M., & Brent, B. (2004). ABC’s of Engineering Education: ABET, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Cooperative Learning and so on. Proceedings of 2004 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exhibition. Session 1375, 12. https://www.engr.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/drive/147AWFnCHL16c3CYK5MBmdL0JDNNT0d3P/2004-ASEE(Jargon).pdf 
Felder, R.M., & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses: Procedures, Pitfalls, and Payoffs. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 377038. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED377038 
Fenstermacher, G., & Soltis, J. (2011). Approaches to Teaching. (A. Nasr, Trans.). Tehran: Avesta.
Gross, M.D., & Do, E.Y-L. (2013). The Design Studio Approach: Learning Architectural Design. College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology. https://depts.washington.edu/dmgftp/publications/pdfs/edutech97-eyd.pdf
Harrow, A. (2013). Taxonomy of Education Objectives. Available at: http://www.humboldt.edu/~tha1/bloomtax.html, Accessed 25 February 2013
Joyse, B., Hopkins, D., & Calhoun, E. (2005). Learning Models, Tools of Teaching. (M. Mehrmohamadi, Trans.). Tehran: Samt.
Ministry of Science Planning High Council. (1998). Bachelor of Architecture Syllabus. Tehran: Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. https://prog.msrt.ir/fa/grid/113/لیست-کامل-رشته-ها?GridSearch%5BpageSize%5D=10&GridSearch%5Bsearch%5D=%D9%85%D9%87%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%B3%DB%8C+%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C 
Molenda, M. (2010). Cone of Experience, Accessed in September 2010, Availableat:http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/Cone%20of%20Experience_text.pdf
Mutlu Danaci, H. (2015). Creativity and Knowledge in Architectural Education, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.174, 1309- 1312. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277651674_Creativity_and_Knowledge_in_Architectural_Education 
Ngeow, K., & Kong, Y.S. (2001). Learning to Learn: Preparing Teachers and Students for Problem-Based Learning. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on English, Reading and Communication. ERIC Digest, EDOSC-01-04. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED457524 
Oakley, B., Felder, R.M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning Student Groups into Effective Teams, J. Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a07c/497f5b3819ae9800a7d6ff9e8d484e456c3d.pdf
Salama, A. (2005). A Process Oriented Design Pedagogy: KFUPM Sophomore Studio. CEBE Transactions. 2, 16-31. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/50241/1/Salama_A_Process_Oriented_Design_Pedagogy_CEBE_Transaction_2005.pdf
Salama, A. (2006). Design Studio Teaching Practices: Between Traditional, Revolutionary, and Virtual Models. Open House International. 31(3),1-116. ISSN 0168-2601. http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/SalamaTeachingPractices.pdf
Armanshahr Architecture & Urban Development
Volume 12, Issue 28
November 2019
Pages 103-114

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 29 May 2017
  • Revise Date: 07 August 2017
  • Accept Date: 29 November 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics