رویه های تربیتی در گونه های آموزش معماران؛ مطالعه موردی: بررسی گزینه های آموزشی پیشنهاد شده دهه اخیر (96-1386) در دانشکده های معماری ایران (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
برخی، تمام و یا بیشتر روند آموزش معماری را فرایندی تربیتی می دانند تا برنامه ای صرفاً آموزشی؛ این موضوع دستمایه برخی پژوهش های حوزه آموزش معماری در ایران نیز بوده است. رویکردهای تربیتی مبتنی بر «جمع محوری» یا «فردمحوری»، موضوعی است که در ادبیات علوم تربیتی و آموزش معماری مورد توجه است. بر این اساس، دو طیف قابل تشخیص است: طیف تعامل «استاد شاگرد» با دو قطب «استادمحوری» و «شاگردمحوری»؛ و طیف تعامل «معمار جامعه» با دو قطب «فردگرایی» و «جمع گرایی» در رویکردهای آموزش معماری. با ترکیب این دو طیف، یک مدل نظری چهار قطبی از گونه بندی آموزش معماری تدوین شده، که منتج به احصاء چهار حوزه تربیت معمار شده است. برای هر یک از حوزه ها، نمونه ای از گونه های آموزش معماری معاصر جایابی شده است. برای روشن شدن وضعیت تربیتی در روش های نوین آموزش معماری ایران، از روش تحلیل محتوای گزارش 28 کار انجام شده در این حوزه در ده سال اخیر (منتشر شده به صورت مقاله در مجلات پژوهشی و سه دوره همایش آموزش معماری دانشگاه تهران) استفاده شده است. با مرور منابع مزبور، روش آموزشی کارگاهی با رویکرد طرّاحی معماری، شناسایی، و با استناد به متون تشریحی و ارزیابی مربوط به آنها، محتوای تربیتی هر روش در هشت طیف مفهومی از سوی نگارندگان تحلیل شده است.Training Processes within Various Types of Architectural Education (Case Study: enquiry of Alternative Educational Processes through Recent Decade (2007-2017) in Architectural Schools of Iran)
Some view architectural education as a training process that could not be reduced to a knowledge-based instruction. Such a theme has been searched through a body of academic researches about architectural aducation. This trend could be traced amongst historical types of architectural education as well as recent ones. So in this study it was first stablished a theoretical framework for studying human training within architectural context of eduction. The debate is organized in two spectrums: 1. Pupil-instructore relationship referes to the nature of educational process from view point of centrality of power and desire of the student as well as the same matter to the instructor. It becomes more important when we consider new trends of educational approaches are turning into student-based field that needs different behavioral system from instructors. 2. Individualist-socialist axis is a current debate of architectural discourse of post-modern era that has its strong roots in educational processes of architecture while its changing paradigm has also being approached mainly through architectural education. Ego-centric views of modern visual art have been spread throughout architectural debate so there is an internal barrier towards social architecture for educated architects. These two axial themes have enough supporting literature in educational sciences. Four types of training trends are so mentioned by an exapmlar for every one of them: 1.individualist-master based approach (ex. Tradition of beaux-ars school). 2. Individualist-student based approach (ex. new cognitive Pupil-instructore method of training). 3. Socialist-student based approach (ex. Critical method of architectural education of Thomas Dutton). 4. Socialist-master based approach (ex. Collaborative architectural education of Henry Sannof). The second part of this study dedicated to a qualitative survey of alternative educational approaches proposed within recent decade (2007-2017) in architectural schools of Iran. Here after reviewing of scientific journals of Iran and proceeds of three National Conferences of Architectural Education (the third, fourth and fifth conference of years 2008, 2011 & 2014 respectively), 28 cases were selected for content analysis. The selection was based on existing of a kind of educational process conducted in architectoral studio or there was at least such a proposition (even not realized). Using axial evaluation of contenta, the coding of their content was based on axial model of literature review mentioned above. For pupil-instructore relationship the four polar codes were: 1. Master’s being a model/ apprentices’ making a model; 2.Great architects’ being a model/apprentices’ making a model; 3. Instrutors’ framing process of studio/students’ producing process of studio; 4.Instructors’ tolerating process of studio/Instrutors’ framing process of studio. For individualist-socialist axis four polar codes were: 1.Emphasizing on social values/ Emphasizing on personal values 2.personal-driven creativity/Architectural institution-driven creativity. 3. Architectural institution-driven creativity/ social-driven creativity; 4. Individual working/Group working. Our analisis shows that there is a great trend towards student-driven processes that is vastly stemmed from normative view of creativity as basic of architecture while social reponcibility has attracted minor attentions. Another obvious aspect of these proposed methods is their attempt for going far from the tradition of Beaux-art that has been the main pattern of architectural education of Iran.
تبلیغات
