The Role of Creative Thinking and Learning Styles in the Education of Architectural Design

Document Type : Scientific Research

Authors

1 PhD student in Architecture, Department of architecture, Faculty of Arts and Architecture, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

2 Full Professor in Architecture, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Arts and Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran

3 Full Professor in Architecture, Department of Architecture, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Researching in the area of designing process as the core of architectural education has attracted researchers and instructors attention in recent decades. Almost, in all of the architectural design educational methods students have been considered similar, therefore educational steps present and follow as the same. In fact, personal characteristics of the students who are studying architectural design have been categorized based on their individual differences, exactly in the same way that human characteristics have been categorized. In other words, these students are different in their abilities, knowledge, insights, and transferring them into designing activities. Assuming that join training programs ignore both the development of students’ skills and their creativity improvement, this article is going to prove that architectural design education depends on the learner and his/her individual characteristics and the teacher would not be able to choose a proper method for educating without considering and understanding these criteria. There are different components in the assessment of the individual differences of learners, among them learning styles have been selected as an indicator of individual differences to be investigated in this paper, due to its importance and impact on the architectural education. In addition, creative thinking factor as an indicator which is associated with the learning style will be examined regarding its effect on reaching success in the complex design process which is the subject of the education and learning procedure in this article. Different learning styles for the designing students can be categorized into Convergence, Divergence, Assimilator and Adaptive that each of which is a combination of different skill levels of learning styles. After studying architectural education and educational psychology fields, standard tests (Torrance Creativity Test, Torrance Creative Thinking Test and Kolb’s Learning Style Questionnaire) conducted in order to study and analyze the students' cognitive differences. Target society surveyed through random cluster sampling among students who have attended to the Architectural Design 2 course, in the Islamic Azad University. The aforementioned course has been chosen because at this level the designer's personality has not been formed completely and his/her responses have not been influenced by the possible ways that teachers use in the design courses and they just have learned some basics of designing in the Architectural Design 1 course. The research continued based on three hypotheses: 1- architectural students’ learning styles are different. 2- architectural students' creativity level differs according to their learning styles. 3- The creative thinking of architectural students varies according to their learning styles. Research hypothesis test was carried out through Chi-square test and one-way variance analysis in SPSS software and proved research hypothesis. The results show that each student has a unique level of creativity and a certain style of learning and student’s creativity and creative thinking level vary according to the students' learning styles. It is important to know and understand every student weakness in each section of creativity (Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration) as well as the skills of learning styles (Concrete Experience, Abstract Conceptualization, Active Experimentation and Reflective Observation), to define individual solutions in order to reinforce components proportionate to their inefficiency in each section. Hence, guiding students in the Design courses requires recognizing individual differences and providing different educational approaches which depend on the expertise and knowledge of instructor in the field of architectural education. Consequently, with respect to the existence of individual differences the Architectural Design instructor should deal with the students one by one depends on their specific characteristics.

Graphical Abstract

The Role of Creative Thinking and Learning Styles in the Education of Architectural Design

Keywords

Main Subjects


  • · اسلامی، غلامرضا و شاپوریان، فریبا. (1392). نظریه­ها و روش­های آموزش خلاقیت در روان­شناسی معاصر غرب. دوفصلنامه علمی-پژوهشی مطالعات تطبیقی هنر (6): 113-125.
  • · باطنی، محمدرضا.( 1385). فرهنگ معاصر پویا. جلد اول، تهران: فرهنگ معاصر.
  • · حاتمیان، محمدرضا و معینی سید حسین. (1397). جایگاه و ویژگی­های درس طرح معماری یک دانشگاه کاشان و اهمیت تفاوت­های فردی یادگیرنده در آن. نشریه علمی- پژوهشی صفه 28 (80): 5-24.
  • · حجت، عیسی. (1391). مشق معماری. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، چاپ سوم.
  • · دبونو، ادوارد. (1394). شش کلاه تفکر. ترجمه حمیدرضا بلوچ. چاپ اول، تهران: نشر شبگیر.
  • ذوالفقاریان، مهسا. امین بیدختی، علی­اکبر. و جعفری، سکینه. (1397). رابطه ساختاری تعامل استاد و دانشجو و روش تدریس فعال اساتید با توسعه شایستگی­های دانشجویان با میانجی­گری کسب دانش. نشریه علمی- پژوهشی پژوهش در نظام­های آموزشی 12 (40): 183-206.
  • · سیف، علی­اکبر. (1390). روانشناسی پرورشی نوین- روانشناسی یادگیری و آموزش. ویراست ششم، تهران : نشر دوران.
  • شریف، حمیدرضا. (1393). تعامل مدرس و دانشجو در کارگاه طراحی معماری (تفکر انتقادی مدرس و تفکر خلاق دانشجو). فصلنامه آموزش مهندسی ایران 16 (64): 23-38.
  • علی­بیگی، امیرحسین. اطهری، زهرا و گراوندی، شهپر. (1390). ارتباط سبک یادگیری با ابعاد شخصیتی دانش­آموزان مراکز آموزش کشاورزی استان کرمانشاه. نشریه علمی- پژوهشی پژوهش در نظام­های آموزشی 5 (12): 71-87.
  • · قره­باغی، علی­اصغر.( 1385 ). دشواری تعریف. نشریه بیناب(سوره مهر) 10: 48-53.
  • · کریمی مشاور، مهرداد. (1391). رابطه سبک­های یادگیری و عملکرد دانشجویان در کارگاه طراحی معماری. نشریه علمی- پژوهشی باغ نظر 9 (20): 3-12.
  • · کوهن، لوئیس و هالیدی، میشل. (1372). آمار در علوم تربیتی و تربیت بدنی. ترجمه­ی علی دلاور. چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.
  • لاوسون، برایان. (1392). طراحان چگونه می­اندیشند- ابهام زدایی از فرآیند طراحی. ترجمه حمید ندیمی. ویراست جدید، تهران: مرکز چاپ و انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
  • · مرادی، خدیجه و پاپ­زن، عبدالحمید. (1393). شناسایی سبک­های یادگیری دانشجویان دانشگاه صنعتی کرمانشاه به منظور ارائه روش­های تدریس اثربخش. نشریه علمی- پژوهشی پژوهش در نظام­های آموزشی 8 (26): 149- 172.
  • · میرمرادی، سمیه. (1397). بررسی سبک­های یادگیری دانشجویان رشته معماری. نشریه علمی- پژوهشی هویت شهر 12 (35): 49-64.
  • Akinyode, B., & Khan, T. (2016). Students’ Learning Style among Planning Students in Nigeria using Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9.
  • Baer, J. (1994). Why you still shouldn’t trust creativity tests. Educational leadership, 52, 2.
  • Cross, Nigel. (2006). Designery ways of knowing. London: Springer Varlag Ltd.
  • Demirbas, O. O. & Demirkan, H. (2003). Focus on architectural design process through learning styles. Design studies, 24, 437-456.
  • Demirbas, O.O. & Demirkan, H. (2007). Learning styles of design students and the relationship of academic performance and gender in design education. Learning and Instruction Journal, (17), 345- 359.
  • Eastman, C., Mc Cracken, M., & Newstetter, W. (2001). Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education. UK: Elsevier Science.
  • Fernandez, M. J., Caraballo, R., & Gal-AN, A. (2010). Faculty attitudes and training needs to respond the new European Higher Education challenges. Higher Education, 60(1), 11-118.
  • Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A Review of Torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 3-14.
  • Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes. London: Wiley.
  • Kwan, T. & Yunyan, J. (2005). Students learning styles and their correlation with performance in architectural design studio, Design Studies, (26), 19- 34.
  • Lee-Davis, L. (2007). Developing work and study skills. USA: Thomson.
  • Maturakarn, C., & Moorapun, C. (2017). Design Thinking: Interior Architecture and Interior Design in Thailand. Environment-Behavior Proceedings Journal, 2(6), 71-79.
  • Newland, P., Powell, J., & Creed, C. (1987). Understanding architectural designers’ selective information handling. Design Studies, 8, 1-17.
  • Torrance, E. P. (1974). Norm-Technical Manual Torrance Test of Creative Thinking, Verbal test, form A and B. Figural test, form A and B. Lexing ton, Massachusetts: Personal Press Inc.
  • Torrance, E. P. and K. Goff. (1999). "A Quiet Revolution", Journal of Creative Behavior, (23), 136-145.
  • Wechsler, S. (2006). Validity of the Torrance tests of creative thinking to the Brazilian culture. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 15-25.