سبک های یادگیری و تفکر قیاسی در فرآیند طراحی معماری (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
روش قیاسی همواره به عنوان یکی از خلاقانه ترین راهکارهای ایده پردازی در فرآیند طراحی معماری مورد توجه بوده است. قیاس به چهار دسته مستقیم، سمبلیک، شخصی و فانتزی تقسیم شده و دو موضوع انتخاب منبع و انتقال منبع به هدف، در فرآیند قیاس اهمیت می یابد. در این مقاله طی یک پژوهش توصیفی (اقدام پژوهی و همبستگی)، پس از تدوین ساختار مناسب برای روش تدریس قیاسی در دروس مقدماتی طراحی معماری، رابطه انواع قیاس با سبک یادگیری دانشجویان مقدمات طراحی بررسی گردید. گردآوری داده ها با استفاده از چک لیست کنترل ویژگی های قیاس و پرسشنامه فلدر و سالمون انجام شد. در سبک فلدر و سالمون، افراد بر اساس چهار معیار تأملی-فعال، حسی-شهودی، کلی-متوالی و دیداری-کلامی قابل تقسیم هستند. تحلیل داده ها با نرم افزار پی ال اس و روش معادلات ساختاری نشان می دهد افراد تأملی در انجام قیاس سمبلیک، افراد فعال در ایجاد قیاس مستقیم، افراد حسی در قیاس های شخصی و دانشجویان با سبک شهودی در قیاس های فانتزی موفقیت بیشتری دارند. همچنین یادگیرندگان با سبک شهودی در انتخاب منابع مناسب و افراد با سبک دیداری و متوالی در انتقال منبع به هدف قیاس موفق تر عمل کرده اند. نتایج این پژوهش در ایجاد روش های آموزشی جدید در دروس مقدمات طراحی مفید خواهد بود.Learning Styles and Analogical Thinking Method during the Design Process of Architecture
The current literature review of design studies indicates the importance of “conceptualization” period during the design process of architecture. There are four major design methods frequently used by architects in the phase of conceptualization. They are called: “analogic”, “typologic”, “pragmatic”, and “theoretic” methods. Analogical method has always been considered as one of the most innovative methods for conceptualization. It is usually considered in four types of: “Direct”, “Symbolic, “Personal” and “Fantasy” analogy. It is important, however, to recognize that there are two critical issues in all analogies: “Identification” and “Retrieval” of selected data source. Two challenging factors in selecting analogical design method are related to the “teaching method” of the educator and the “learning style” of the learner. Learning in design is an internal process that is different for each student. A student’s preferred method for receiving information in any learning environment is considered as his/her Learning Style. Evident show, various learning-style models are employed in design education. The most common learning-style models are known as Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory (1981), Felder-Soloman’s Index of Learning Styles (2004) and Ned Herrmann Whole Brain Model (1989). In their definitions, for example, Felder & Soloman identified eight types of learning styles and place them in four scales of: Active/Reflective, Sensing/Intuitive, Visual/Verbal and Sequential/Global. In the first section, this article using Action Research method introduces a new teaching method in the field of analogical methods. This teaching method is applied over a period of three weeks in pre design courses. The second section, using correlation method, investigates the relationship between the types of analogy and the learning styles used by 100 predesign students at 2 Universities, in Gorgan. Data collection was conducted by using a checklist for comparison between the features of analogy and Felder & Soloman questionnaires.The analysis of the data was conducted by SMART-PLS software. The findings of the Structural equation method in this research indicate that: =Students with different learning styles tend to use different types of analogies in the process of ideas and they got different levels of success in performing analogy. When professors use analogical method or when faced with students who use an analogical method to create their design concept, they should pay attention to their individual differences in the direction of students. =Most students of architecture tend to use Direct and Symbolic analogy in their projects. On the other hand, in learning style field, a strong preference is reported in Active/ Intuitive/ Visual and Sequential scales by the students. =Reflective learners use symbols and concepts for analogy and they are more successful in performing Symbolic analogy. On the other hand, Active learners are more likely to use the available sources and have more success in direct analogy. =Sensing learners is reported more successful in Personal analogy and Intuitive learners make better outcomes in Fantasy analogy. =Investigating design sketches indicates that Intuitive learners act better in Identification and Retrieval of the source of analog. =Sequential and Visual learners have been more successful in mapping and transferring the source into the target.
تبلیغات
