Learning Styles and Analogical Thinking Method during the Design Process of Architecture

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Architecture, Department of Architecture, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

اشمن، آدریان (1384)، مقدمه‌ای بر آموزش‌و‌پرورش شناختی: نظریه و کاربرد، ترجمه سیدکمال خرازی، انتشارات سنا، تهران.
باستانی، مهیار (1396)، استفاده از روش تفکر قیاسی به عنوان یک روش ایده‌پردازی در کارگاه مقدمات طراحی معماری، ششمین همایش ملی آموزش معماری، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، صص 6-20.
باستانی، مهیار و امیرسعید محمودی (1397)، روش‌های خلق ایده و کانسپت در فرآیند طراحی معماری، نشریه هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، 23(1)، صص 5-18.
سیف، علی اکبر (1383)، روانشناسی پرورشی، روانشناسی یادگیری و آموزش، انتشارات آگاه، تهران.
شمس‌آباد، حسن (1382)، مطالعه سبک‌های یادگیری و رابطه بین سبک‌های یادگیری با پیشرفت تحصیلی و جنسیت در دانش‌آموزان دختر و پسر دوره متوسطه شهر زنجان، شورای تحقیقات سازمان آموزش و پرورش استان زنجان، زنجان.
صمدی، معصومه (1390)، بررسی‌های ویژگی روان‌سنجی پرسشنامه سبک یادگیری فلدر و سالمون در دختران دوره راهنمایی، رویکردهای نوین آموزشی، 6(1)، صص 39-60.
فیضی، محسن و لیلا علیپور(۱۳۹۳)، نقش آموزش معماری در کیفیت بهره گیری از منابع الهام، پنجمین همایش آموزش معماری، دانشکده معماری دانشگاه تهران، تهران.
محمودی، امیرسعید (1389)، برنامه‌دهی معماری، یک ضرورت برای طراحی، مجله هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، شماره 44، صص 77-85.
محمودی، امیرسعید (1383)، تفکر در طراحی، معرفی الگوی تفکر تعاملی در آموزش طراحی، مجله هنرهای زیبا، شماره 20، صص27-36.
محمودی، امیرسعید (1381)، چالش های آموزش طراحی معماری در ایران، مجله هنرهای زیبا، شماره12، صص70-79.
محمودی، امیرسعید (1377)، آموزش روند طراحی معماری، بکارگیری استعدادهای نهفته دانشجویان، مجله هنرهای زیبا، شماره 4و 5، صص73-81.
 
Bagozzi, R.P & C. Fornell (1982), The oretical concept, measurements and meaning, In: A second generation of multivariate analysis, C. Fornell. (Eds). NY, Prager, New York.
Broadbent, Geoffrey (1988), Design in Architecture: Architecture and Human Sciences, David Fulton Publishers, London.
Broadbent, G (1973), Methodology in the service of delight, In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference of Environmental Design Research Association-EDRA. pp 314-318.
Brown, A (1989), Analogical learning and transfer: What develops?, In: Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, S. Vosniadou, & A. Ortony (Eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Casakin, H & A. Timmeren (2014), Analogies as creative inspiration sources in the design studio: the teamwork, Athens Journal of Architecture,1(Y),pp. 1-13.
Casakin, H (2012), Visual analogy as a cognitive stimulator for idea generation in design problem solving, In: The Psychology of Problem Solving: An Interdisciplinary Approach, S. Helie (Eds), Nova Science Publishers, New York.
Chin, W.W (2003), Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly. 22(1). pp 7-16.
Cirenei, M (2014), Finding Pier Luigi Nervi, retrieved from http://www.photoarch.com/projects/finding-pier-luigi-nervi.
Cruz-Perez, M (2003), Assessment of teaching styles of Autocad in interior design, Master of Arts Thesis, Washington State University.
Collins, P (1971), Architectural Judgment, McGill University Press, Montreal, Canada.
Demirkan, H (2016), An inquiry into the learning-style and knowledge-building preferences of interior architecture students, Design Studies, Vol 44, pp. 28-51.
Felder, R & B. Soloman (2004), Index of learning styles, retrieved on 20 September 2009 from http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html.
Felder, R & L. Silverman (1988), Learning and teaching styles in engineering education, Engineering Education, 78(7), pp. 674-681.
Fulani, O; P, Alagbe; F, Aderonmu; B, Jegede & B, Adewale (2016), Gender, learning styles and performance of 1st year architecture students: first stage of a longitudinal study, Proceedings of EDULEARN16 Conference, Barcelona, Spain. pp 5730-5736.
Gary, F.T & A.B, Terry (2003), Determinants of the relative advantage of a structured SDM during the adoption stage of implementation, Information Technology and Management, 4(4), ??????.
Gentner, D (1983), Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy, Cognitive Science, 7(2), pp. 155-170.
Gero, J. S (2000), Computational Models of Innovative and Creative Design Processes, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 64 (2-3), Elsevier Science Inc., pp 183-196.
Gick, M.L & K.J. Holyoak (1983), Schema induction and analogical transfer, Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), pp. 1-38.
Goldschmidt, Gabriela (2001), Visual Analogy - a Strategy for Design Reasoning and Learning, In: Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, C. Eastman & W. Newstetter & M. McCracken, Elsevier Science.
Gordon, W.J.J (1961), Synectics, the development of creative capacity, Harper & Row, New York.
Hearn, Millard F (2003), Idea that shaped Buildings, The MIT Press, Massachusetts.
Holyoak, K. J & P.Thagard (1997), The analogical mind, American Psychologist, 52(1), pp. 35-44.
Holyoak, K (1990), Problem-solving, in: Thinking: An invitation to cognitive science, Osherson D.N. and Smith E.E. (Eds), vol 3. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Johnson-Laird, P (1989), Analogy and the exercise of creativity, In: Similarity and Analogical Reasoning, S. Vosniadou, & A. Ortony (Eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Jormakka, K & O. Schurer (2007), Basic design methods, Birkhauser Architecture, Berlin.
Karimullin, Askar (2012), Window light filtering, retrieved from https://www.alamy.com/window-light-filtering-has-made-from-series-of-apertures-image178938693.html.
Kolb, D. A (1981), Learning styles and disciplinary differences, Jossey-Bass Inc, California.
Kraus, L A; W.M. Reed & G.E. Fitzgerald (2001), The effects of learning style and hypermedia prior experience on behavioral disorders knowledge and time on task: A case-based hypermedia environment, Computers in Human Behavior, 17 (1), pp.125-140.
Laseau, P (1980), Graphic Thinking for Architects and Designers, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Ledewitz, S (1985), Models of design in studio teaching, Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), pp. 2-8.
Mostafa, M.M & H.M, Mostafa (2010), How do Architects Think? Learning Styles and Architectural Education, Archnet-IJAR, 4(2-3), pp. 310-317.
Newland, P; J.A. Powell & C. Creed (1987), Understanding architectural designers’ selective information handling, Design Studies, 8(1), pp. 2-16.
Steadman, J.P (2008), The evolution of designs: biological analogy in architecture and the applied arts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Salama, Ashraf (2016), Spatial Design Education: New Directions for Pedagogy in Architecture and Beyond, Routledge, ?????.
Simon, H (1984), The structure of ill-structured problems, In: Developments in Design Methodology, N. Cross (Eds). John Wiley and Sons, New York.
 Snyder, J. C; A.J. Catanese & T. McGinty (1979), Design and the Design Process, In: Introduction to architecture, T.MacGinty (Eds), McGraw-Hill, United States of America.
Van Zwanenberg, N; L.Wilkinson & A. Anderson (2000), Felder and Silverman’s index of learning styles and Honey and Mumford’s learning styles questionnaire: How do they compare and do they predict academic performance?, Education Psychology, 20(3), pp. 365-380.
Wender, W. V & J. Roger (1995),The design life space: Verbal communication in the architectural design studio, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 12(4), pp. 319-336.
Wu, Yun-Wu; Kuo-Hua Weng & i-Ming Young (2016), A concept transformation learning model for architectural design learning process, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Educatio,12(5), pp. 1189-1197.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning
Volume 24, Issue 1
March 2019
Pages 71-84

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics