Pathology of design studio education with a constructive approach to the nature of design knowledge

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Assistant Professor of Architecture University College Omran & Tosee,Hamedan,Iran

2 Assistant Professor,Department of Architecture,Hamedan Branch,Islamic Azad University,Hamedan,Iran(IAUH)

3 Hossein Ardalani, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy of Art, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran.


Pathology of design studio education with a constructive approach to the nature of design knowledge
Teaching of design courses in workshops and the way of teaching them according to various design methods and theories have been the most important issue and concern of architecture schools. In this regard, issues such as the design process and the procedure to reach a design have been raised, which often do not reach the desired resultsDesign is one of the most complicated and at the same time the most important human creative activity that requires its own specific capacity and knowledge. Research in design has been around for several decades in ways early research has sought to provide practical design procedures; this is while recent studies have tended to the complexities of the work, described the problem space and the design process. . This dissertation has a constructive view of the nature of design knowledge and examines education in architecture workshops and pathology of conventional method in architecture workshops with an emphasis on the constructive approach. The most important question in this regard is how we can explain a framework for pathology of workshop education by analyzing the nature of knowledge. It begins with a discussion of architectural education, introduces architectural education courses, and the characteristics of each course, and finally it refers to studies conducted on pathology. Then, design-research studies and design process models were introduced for better understanding of the design practice and knowledge required for design. Relying on the postmodern approach, appropriate knowledge and teaching methods for design workshops were introduced. Since the research method of this dissertation was grounded theory, to increase the validity of the research, data were collected using a consensus of three methods (valid sources and documents, interviews with professors and field study of architectural workshops). In the first method, using meta-analytic research, it was found that the appropriate approach for teaching in design workshops is constructive learning, since design knowledge must be constructed and not transferable. Relying on the interviews, the findings showed that knowledge is constructed in architectural workshops and also the disadvantages of education in knowledge construction in architectural workshops were expressed. In field observation, with a rich description (using Schaefer's model (2003)) as well as findings obtained from the previous two methods, categories such as knowledge construction in architectural workshops, the role of teacher and student in knowledge construction, and a constructive approach in architectural workshops were extracted. There is no pre-determined knowledge for design, but design knowledge is constructed simultaneously with designing during the design process based on the various factors that exist. Thus, in design workshops, they should seek to construct knowledge. One of the important factors in constructing design knowledge is teamwork and an interaction between group members. Lack of effective teamwork in design workshops is one of its shortcomings. In the final evaluation, lack of paying attention to individual abilities and the final comparison of each person with other students in the workshop are among the harms of these environments.


حجت, ع. (1391). سنت و بدعت در آموزش معماری. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
سیف, ع. (1386). روانشناسی پرورشی نوین: روانشناسی یادگیری و آموزش. تهران: دوران. صدرام, و. (1392). تقلیددرست،پیش‌نیازخلاقیت،یادگیری تقلیدی در آموزش فرایندطراحی معماری. صفه, 76,صص 5-16.
فتحی, م. (1398, 86-100). نظریه سازنده گرایی اجتماعی و دلالتهای آن برای فرایند یادگیری و تدریس. پویش در آموزش علوم انسانی, 15.
فرضیان, م. کرباسی, ع. (1393). "دست‌ساخته‌ها-تجربة شخصی"یادگیری از راه ساختن در آموزش معماری. هنرهای زیبا,صص 87-96.
گیج, ا. (1374). مبانی علمی هنر تدریس. تهران: انتشارات مدرسه.
لاوسون, ب. (1384). طراحان چگونه می‌اندیشند؟. (ح. ندیمی) تهران: دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی.
لاوسون, ب. (1395). طراحان چه می‌دانند؟. (ح. ندیمی, ف. شریعت‌راد, & ف. باقی‌زاده, مترجم) تهران: دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی.
محمودی, س. (1378). آموزش روند طراحی معماری. هنرهای زیبا, 4و5,صص 73-81.
Archer, L. (1979). The Structure of the Design Process,Design methods in Architecture. London: LundHumphries.
Bartlett, F.(1932). Remebering. Cambridge: Cambridge Unvirsity Press.
Brawne, M. (2003). Architectural Thought:The Design Process and the Expectant Eye.
UK:Architecural Press of Elsevier.
Christensen, B & Ball, L .(2016). Creative analogy use in a heterogeneous design team: The pervasive role of background domain knowledge. Design Studies, 46,38-58.
Cross, N .(1984). Development in Design Methodology. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of kniwing. Design studie, 95-103.
Demirbas, O & Demirkan, H .(2003). Focus on architectural Design pricess through learning styles.
Design Studies, 437-456.
Dorst, K. (1997). Describing Design: a Comparison of Paradigms. Netherland: Rotterdam.
Goldschmidt, G & William, P. (2004). Design Representation. New York: Springer doi.
Idi, D & Khaidzir, K. .(2015). Concept of creativity and innovation in architectural design process.
International Journal of Innovation,Management and Technology, 6(1),16.
Jonassen, D .(1999). Designing consructivist learning environments. Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, 215-239.
Kurt, S. .(2009). An analytic study on the traditional studio enviroments and the use of the constructivist studio in the architectural design education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 401-408.
Kvan,T.(2005). Studio teaching without meeting. Presented at the Conference on Computer Aided Architectual Design in Asia.
McMahon, M & Kiernan, L.(2011). Beyond the studio: collabration and learning outside the formal desing studio. Design Studies.
Polatoglu, C & Vural, S. (2012). As an educational tool the importance of informal studies/studios in architectural design education; case of walking Istanbul 1&2. Procedia-social and Behavioral, 480-484.
Salama, A. .(2005). Skill-Based/Knowledge-Based Architectural Pedagogies: Toward an Alternativefor Creating Humane. Salama, A., & N. Wilkinson, e .(2007). Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Gateshead: UK: The UrbanInternational Press.
Schon, d. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner:How Professionals Think Action. USA: Basic Books.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: CA, US: Jossey-Bass.
Shaffer, D. .(2003). The Design Studio:A Promising Model for Learning to Collaborate:Thoughts in Response to Hall,Star,and Neminrovsky.In T.Koschmann,R.HII,&N. Computer Support for Collaborative learning, 2, 223-228.
Simon, H. (1969). The structure of ill-formed problems. Artificial, 181-201.
Walsh, D., Foley, K., Glare, P., & et al .(2009). Palliative medicine. PhiladelPhia: W.B. Saunders.
Westwood, P. (2008). What eachers need to know about teaching methods. Camberwell, Vic.:ACER Press.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J .(2005). Understanding by Design. USA: ASCD publications. Woolfolk, A. .(2001). Educational Phychology. boston: Allyn&Bacon co press, 44-