مقایسه تطبیقی “ساختار جلسات نقد و کرکسیون در آتلیه پژوهشی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی” با “ساختار پیشنهادی پژوهشگران فعال در این حوزه” (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
شناسایی ساختار مطلوب جلسات نقد و کرکسیون در آتلیه های معماری از ضرورت های یک ساختار آموزشی پیشرو و کارآمد محسوب می شود. هدف از پژوهش حاضر شناسایی میزان انطباق ساختار جلسات نقد و کرکسیون در آتلیه پژوهشی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی با ساختار پیشنهادی پژوهشگران فعال در این حوزه است. روش تحقیق پژوهش حاضر، اسنادی - پیمایشی و متکی بر فن تحلیل محتوا است. نمونه گیری در این پژوهش به شیوه هدفمند انجام شده است. آتلیه پژوهشی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی با توجه به رویکرد نوین آن در امر آموزش معماری به عنوان حجم نمونه مورد نظر انتخاب گردید. در این پژوهش برای تحلیل آماری داده های کمی از نرم افزار SPSS استفاده شده است. یافته های پژوهش حاکی از شناسایی ده مفهوم یا معیار اصلی در ساختار جلسات نقد و کرکسیون در آتلیه پژوهشی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی است. نتایج پژوهش نشان دهنده ارتباط مستقیم و معنادار میان ساختار جلسات نقد و کرکسیون در آتلیه پژوهشی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی با ساختار پیشنهادی پژوهشگران فعال در این حوزه بر اساس مفاهیم ده گانه شناسایی شده می باشد؛ به این مفهوم که جلسات نقد و کرکسیون در آتلیه پژوهشی دانشگاه شهید بهشتی برخوردار از چهارچوبی نظام مند و همگرا با ساختارهای موفق جهانی است. لذا به عنوان یک نمونه موفق داخلی با قابلیت تعمیم پیشنهاد می گردد. فرضیه حاکم بر پژوهش میزان این انطباق را در سطح متوسط ارزیابی کرده بود؛ لیکن ضمن اثبات این فرضیه، مقدار ضریب همبستگی 0/674 وجود رابطه مستقیم و در سطح بالاتر از متوسط را نیز تائید می نماید.Comparative comparison of “Criticism and Correction session structure in the research studio of Shahid Beheshti University” and the “Proposed structure of active researchers in this field”
Extended Abstract Background and Objectives: Criticism and correction sessions form the basis of evaluating architectural design projects. A valid and targeted assessment, in addition to measuring fundamental knowledge, also measures its practical application in practice. Integrating knowledge and skills stands as a primary objective within architectural studios. Therefore, evaluation plays a very important role in the process of architectural education that shapes the professionals in the future. The most important issue is to achieve different methods of criticism according to different conditions. Additionally, evaluation should extend beyond merely appraising final projects, encompassing the critique process throughout an educational period (such as an academic semester) for formative assessment. The application of the successful experiences of foreign researchers in the workshop critique process and its comparative comparison with the workshop critique process in Iran can determine our position in this field. The aforementioned comparative comparison has generally identified the similarities and differences of successful international experiences compared to domestic experiences, and by examining and discovering the reason for the existence of these similarities and differences, it is possible to (1) solve the problem, which is to identify the degree of conformity of the structure of criticism and correction sessions. Through this comparative analysis, two key objectives are addressed: aligning the structure of critique sessions with active research findings and identifying optimal criticism methods within educational contexts. Ultimately, this process leads to localization and enhancement of architectural education practices. In this study, Shahid Beheshti University views the architectural studio as a research workshop, adopting a novel approach to architectural education. Guided by fundamental principles outlined by faculty, this workshop aims to enhance the quality of architecture education, positioning itself as a successful domestic model compared to international counterparts. The primary objective of this paper is to evaluate the alignment of Shahid Beheshti University research studio critique and correction session structure with the recommendations of leading researchers in the field. Specifically, the authors seek to answer the question: to what extent does the structure of critique and correction sessions at Shahid Beheshti University research studio adhere to the standards proposed by active researchers? It is hypothesized that the level of conformity to these standards is within the average range, although empirical evidence will be necessary to confirm this assertion. Methods: In this comparative study, researchers employed a hypothesis testing approach using a comparative strategy. The study utilized data from two sources: (a) the opinions of leading researchers in architectural education, particularly concerning the structure of criticism and correction sessions, and (b) the innovative approach of Shahid Beheshti University research studio. Ten key concepts, defining the theoretical framework of criticism and correction sessions in architectural studios, were identified through a systematic review of relevant literature from both communities. These concepts, derived from a scientific process, also align with historical perspectives on the subject. The research method employed in this study is a documentary-survey approach utilizing content analysis techniques. The process begins with the selection of keywords and concepts. In the initial step, information is gathered by extracting data from two sources: (1) scientific research articles authored by selected researchers on the broader topic of ‘criticism and correction sessions in architectural studios,’ and (2) published articles specifically related to this topic, focusing on Shahid Beheshti University. The second step involves qualitative and quantitativ
تبلیغات
