ارائه‌‌ی مدل ارزیابی دروس طراحی معماری با استفاده از فرآیند تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی (AHP)

مهوش, محمد; صفار, محی‌الدین

doi:10.22034/aaud.2022.273728.2428

ارائه‌‌ی مدل ارزیابی دروس طراحی معماری با استفاده از فرآیند تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی (AHP)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

¹ استادیار گروه معماری، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه بجنورد، بجنورد، ایران (نویسنده مسئول).

² کارشناسی ارشد معماری، دانشکده هنر، دانشگاه بجنورد، بجنورد، ایران.

10.22034/aaud.2022.273728.2428

چکیده

یکی از ارکان اصلی بررسی یادگیری در آموزش معماری، ارزیابی طرح‌‌های معماری دانشجویان است. ارزیابی طرح‌‌ها امروزه به یکی از نارضایتی‌‌های دانشجویان تبدیل ‌شده و بیش‌تر دانشجویان معتقدند این کار به ‌درستی انجام نمی‌‌شود و یا معیار صحیحی برای سنجش آن وجود ندارد و اساتید بیش‌تر با سلیقه‌‌ی شخصی به ارزیابی این دروس می‌‌پردازند. لذا بررسی نحوه‌‌ی مناسب ارزیابی این دروس که مورد توافق اساتید معماری بوده و به روشنی به ابعاد مختلف طراحی معماری بپردازد ضروری به نظر می‌‌رسد. هدف این پژوهش ارائه‌ی روشی کاربردی به‌ منظور ارزیابی دروس طراحی معماری است و دو سؤال اصلی مطرح‌شده در این پژوهش عبارت اند از: 1. در ارزیابی دروس طراحی معماری باید چه عواملی مد‌نظر باشد؟ 2. وزن هر یک از عوامل مؤثر در ارزیابی دروس طراحی معماری به چه میزان است؟ این پژوهش، توصیفی- تحلیلی و از نوع زمینه‌‌یابی (پیمایشی) است. ابزار گردآوری داده‌‌ها منابع کتابخانه‌‌ای، مصاحبه و پرسش‌‌نامه است. وزن‌‌دهی به معیارها و معرف‌‌های ارزیابی دروس طراحی نیز با نظرسنجی از خبرگان (دلفی) و با روش تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی (AHP) و به کمک نرم‌افزار EC صورت گرفته است. نتایج بررسی نشان داد به منظور ارزیابی کامل دروس طراحی معماری باید ارزیابی توأمان در طول و پایان ترم صورت پذیرد. مقایسه‌‌ی زوجی بین آن‌‌ها نیز بیانگر آن است که ارزیابی مستمر (با وزن 0.645) نسبت به ارزیابی در پایان‌ترم (با وزن 0.335) به ‌مراتب از اهمیت بیش‌تری برخوردار است؛ در ارزیابی مستمر، پیشرفت تحصیلی دانشجویان (با وزن 0.345) و رعایت مسائل اخلاقی و انضباطی (با وزن 0.293) بیش‌ترین اهمیت را به خود اختصاص داده‌اند و در ارزیابی پایان‌ترم نیز توجه به بعد معنایی یعنی ایده و میزان موفقیت در تبدیل آن به فرم و پاسخ‌گویی طرح به نیازهای روحی- روانی کاربران (با وزن 0.445) مهم‌‌تر از سایر ابعاد (فرم و عملکرد) طرح‌‌اند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Presenting a Model for the Evaluation of Architectural Design Courses Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Technique

نویسندگان [English]

Mohammad Mahvash ¹
Mahyoddin Saffar ²

¹ Assistant Professor of Architecture, Faculty of Art, University of Bojnord, Bojnord, Iran (Corresponding Author).

² M.A. of Architecture, Faculty of Art, University of Bojnord, Bojnord, Iran.

چکیده [English]

The evaluation of students' architectural designs is one of the main elements considered to investigate how learning is in architecture education. Nowadays, the design evaluation has caused students to be dissatisfied with education, and most students believe that this is not carried out rightly or there are no proper evaluation criteria, and professors evaluate students in the courses based on their tastes. Therefore, it seems necessary to examine the appropriate evaluation method that is agreed upon by architecture professors and in which the different dimensions of architectural design are considered. The present study aims to provide an applied method for the evaluation of architectural design courses. It seeks to answer two main questions: 1- What factors should be considered in the evaluation of architectural design courses? 2- What is the weight of each of the effective factors in the evaluation of architectural design courses? This is descriptive-analytical survey research. The required data are collected through library studies, interviews, and questionnaires. The design course evaluation criteria and indicators are weighted by surveying experts (Delphi technique) and using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique in EC software. The results indicated that both continuous evaluation and end-of-semester evaluation must be carried out to fully evaluate architectural design courses. A pairwise comparison between them also shows that continuous evaluation (with a weight of 0.645) is much more important than the end-of-semester evaluation (with a weight of 0.335). Among the sub-dimensions of continuous evaluation, academic achievement (with a weight of 0.345), and the observance of ethics and discipline (with a weight of 0.293) obtain the highest weight, respectively, and among the sub-dimensions of end-of-semester evaluation, attention to the "meaning" dimension, i.e. the idea and the degree of success in transforming it into a form and the responsiveness of the design to the user's mental-psychological needs, (with a weight of 0.445) is identified to be more important than other sub-dimensions (form and function of the design).

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

Continuous Evaluation
Final Evaluation
Architectural Design
Analytic Hierarchy Process

مراجع

Ahadi, Parisa. 2017. Using DEMATEL to Evaluation model of Students' ARCHITECTURAL Design Projects. Hoviatshahr 12(33): 75-88. https://hoviatshahr.srbiau.ac.ir/article_12500_9779e1b64aa1f6f6646a5545b58d1109.pdf
Alexander, Christopher. 2017. The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe. Translated by Reza Sirus Sabri and Ali Akbari. Tehran: Parham Naqsh. http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/2273032
Black, Paul, and Dylan Wiliam. 2009. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability 21(1): 5–31. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/developing-the-theory-of-formative-assessment(fcd445d2-fe8b-48c8-9b8d-2578f6d8ddd0).html
Capon, David Smith. 2004. Architectural Theory. Translated by Ali Yaran. Tehran: Islamic Azad University, Research and Science Branch. http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/715934
Pakzad, Jahanshah. 2006. Theoretical foundations and urban process. Tehran: Shahidi Publications. http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/796611
Gholami, Somaye, Sara Ahmadi Khanamini, and Naser Ahmadiyan. 2019. Identifying the Factors Affecting the Difference between Continuous and Final Assessment in Third-Year (Senior) Students in Secondary Schools from the Viewpoint of Teachers and Students: A Mixed Method Research. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Studies 9(28): 139-170. http://jresearch.sanjesh.org/article_38192.html
Golkar, Koroush .2000. Components of Urban Design Quality. SOFFEH 11(32): 38-65. https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=33257
Izadi, Abbasali, and Reza Sameh. 2014. Design evaluation mechanism in architecture education, proposing a model for process assessment and design evaluation in the interaction between professor and student. Iranian Architecture and Urbanism (8): 1-13. https://www.isau.ir/article_61988_aed5a299e7cc65823571e4b2fac85a46.pdf?lang=en
Jones, J. C. 1970. The State of the Art in Design Methods. In: Emerging Methods in Environmental Design and Planning. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/emerging-methods-environmental-design-and-planning
Lawson, Bryan. 2011. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Translated by Houriyeh Piri and Mojtaba Dolatkhah. Tehran: Saeedeh, Dolatmand, Mehrad. http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/2255411
Litkouhi, Sanaz. 2013. Analyzing the relationship between students' educational background and their final projects' evaluation. Iranian Architecture and Urbanism (6): 77-87. https://www.sid.ir/fa/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=240813
Lotfabadi, Hossein. 2013. Assessment and measurement (in educational sciences and psychology), traditional psychology and new approaches to psychological-educational assessment. Mashhad: Hakim Ferdowsi Publications. http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/3393512
Mahmoodi, Amir Saeid, and Mahyar Bastani. 2017. Conceptualization Methods in the Design Process of Architecture. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba 10(73): 5-18. https://jfaup.ut.ac.ir/article_67904.html
Markus, T. A. 1969. The role of building performance measurement and appraisal in design method. Design methods in Architecture. London: Lund Humphries.
Memarian, Gholamhossein. 2014. An overview of the theoretical foundations of architecture. Third edition. Tehran: Soroush Danesh Publications in collaboration with Memar Publications. http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/3446694
Mirriahi Saeid. 2010. Assessing Design Skills in Architectural Education. SOFFEH (49): 68-63. https://soffeh.sbu.ac.ir/article_100099_6b9249e1b22849c148e06dc3de4e839b.pdf
Mirriahi, Saeid. 2014. Measurement and Evaluation in Architecture Education Systems with an Emphasis on Team-Based Learning and Peer Evaluation Method. Armanshahr 13: 107-117. http://www.armanshahrjournal.com/article_33440.html
Nadimi, Hamid. 2010. An Analysis of the Evaluation of Architectural Designs. SOFFEH 20 (2-1): 9-20. https://soffeh.sbu.ac.ir/article_100387.html
Rezaei Ashtiani, Sima, and Jamaluddin Mahdinejad. 2019. Proposing a criteria-based assessment pattern for architectural design studios. Technology of Education 13(3): 299-314. https://jte.sru.ac.ir/%20http:/itvhe.areo.ir/article_946.html
Roozenburg, N. F. M., and J. Eekels. 1995. Product design: fundamentals and methods. Chichester, NewYork: John Wiley and sons. https://www.amazon.com/Product-Design-Fundamentals-Development-Engineering/dp/0471954659
Tridane, Malika, Said Belaaouad, Said Benmokhtar, Bouchra Gourja, and Mohamed Radid. 2015. The impact of formative assessment on the learning process and the Unreliability of the mark for the summative evaluation. 7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, (WCES-2015), 186(4), 578–595. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815040525
Utaberta, Nangkula, and Badiossadat Hassanpour. 2012. Reconstructing a Framework for Criteria-Based Assessment and Grading in Architecture Design Studio. Social and Behavioral Sciences 60(2012): 142-149. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257716921_Reconstructing_a_Framework_for_Criteria-Based_Assessment_and_Grading_in_Architecture_Design_Studio
Zebardast, Esfandiar. 2001. Analytic Hierarchy Process, Decision analyses, Multi-criteria evaluation technique, Site Selection. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba (10): 13-21. https://journals.ut.ac.ir/article_13624.html