Training in Basic Design Studio: Analysis of Tutor & Novice Students Interactions, Using Linkography Method

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran

2 Department Architecture, Bualisina University Of Hamedan, Hamedan, Iran

Abstract

In the basic architectural design studio, due to the student being at the novice level and their unfamiliarity with the nature of design knowledge, there are always challenges in the field of learning and teaching. The most important educational activity in the architectural design studio that increases the design ability of novice students is the interaction between tutor and student, around solving the design problem. Therefore, studying and analyzing the correction sessions held by the tutor while solving the design problem can provide complete information about the quality of interactions and the factors affecting them. This set of information can be useful in future studies to facilitate design education for novice students. one of the most recent and also most accurate methods to analyze the way designers think in the situation they face with a design problem is to analyze design sessions using the Linkography method. In this method, what happens aurally during the design critique session between the tutor and the novice student is written down and the resulting text is coded using the FBS method. In FBS coding, codes are design problems and their relationship to each other defines design processes. Linkography is a method that converts the conceptual connection between codes into visual diagrams.in the current research, the interactions of tutors and novice students in three basic design studios have been analyzed and reviewed using the Linkography method. In the next step, citing the results of the analysis of Schön's theory as the most complete written research in the field of studio education, the role of the tutor in a successful studio has been identified. the results demonstrate that to establish successful interactions between tutor and student in the basic design studio, playing the role of the coach by the tutor is necessary. The tutor in the position of coaching has special behavioral characteristics that are introduced in the final research results.

Keywords


  1. Al-Hammadi, N &Dahabreh, S &Abdel-Jaber, M. (2020). New Strategies of Linkography for Investigating the Role of Dialogues in Architectural Design Education. International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology. 13(6): 1391-1408
  2. Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio.New York: Van Nostrand Beinhold
  3. Arida, S. (2010). More seening in Learning. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. PhD.
  4. Argris, C. (1981). Teaching and learning in design settings. Architecture Education Study. New York: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
  5. Austerlitz, N and Aravot, I. (2007). Emotions of architecture students: a new perspective for the design studio. Design studio pedagogy: horizons for the future. Gateshead: The Urban International Press. PP. 233- 45.
  6. Bose, M. (1997). Methods of Studio instruction: Hidden Agendas and Implicit Assumption. The MIT Press.
  7. Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: The story of practice. The MIT Press.
  8. Cross, N. (1995). Observations of Teamwork and Social Processes in Design. Design Studies. 12 ( 2 ): 143 – 170.
  9. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in Design: an Overview. Design Studies. 25(5): 427–441.
  10. Dorst, K. (2002). Describing Design: A Comparison of Paradigms. Rotterdam: Delft University. PhD.
  11. Dinham, S.M. (1987). An ongoing qualitative study of architecture studio teaching: analyzing tutor–student exchanges. Proc. ASHE Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD. November 21–24.
  12. Dezhdar,O. Etesam and slami. (2013). Pathology of Studio Learning Process Based on Analysis of Donald Schön's Research on Design Studios. Jurnal. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res. 3(8): 591-598.
  13. Dutton, T. A. (ed.) (1991). Voices in
  14. architectural education: Cultural politics and
  15. pedagogy. New York, NY: Bergin and Garvey
  16. Dutton, T. A. (1991). The hidden curriculum and the design studio. In T. A. Dutton (Ed.), Voices in Architectural education: Cultural politics and pedagogy (pp. 165-194). New York: Bergin and Gravey.
  17. Gero, J.S &Kan, J.w &Purmohamadi, M. (2011). Analysing Design Protocols: Development of Methods and Tools. international conference. Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. 10-12 January.
  18. Gero, J.S &Pourmohamadi, M &Williams, C. (2012). the Effect of Employing Different Design Methods on Design Cognition, Articulating Design Thinking. Sydney.
  19. Gero, J.S &Jiang, H. (2014). Comparing the Design Cognition of Concept Design. Reviews of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering Designers. Purdue University. DTRS 10: Design Thinking Research Symposium.
  20. Goldschmidt, G. (2016). Linkographic evidence for concurrent divergent and convergent thinking in creative design. Creativity Research Journal, 28 (2016): 115-122
  21. Goldschmidt, G. (2010). The design studio “crit”: Tutor–student communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design. Analysis and Manufacturing. 24: 285–302.
  22. Heylighen, A &Neuckerinans, H &Bouwen, J. (1999). Walking on a thin line - Between Passive Knowledge and active Knowing of Components and Concepts in Architectural Design. Design Studies. 20(2): 211-235.
  23. Jahanbakhsh, B & Pourmohammadi, M. (2018). Analyzing the effect of available technologies on the thinking of product beginner and pro designers using linkography method. HONAR-HA-YE-TAJASSOMI.  23(2 ): 111-118.
  24. Kan , J. W. T &J. S. Gero. (2006). Acquiring Information from Linkography in Protocol Studies of Designing. Design Studies. 29 ( 4 ): 315 – 337.
  25. Koach, A, Schwennsen, K, Dutton, T. A, & Smith, D. (2012). The design of studio culture: A report of the AIAS studio culture task force, The American Institute of Architecture Students.
  26. Monson, J. (2014). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
  27. Nicol, D and Pilling, S. (2000). Architecture education and the profession, In D. Nicol, & S. Pilling (Eds.),Changing Architectural Education. London: E & F Spon: 1-26
  28. Ochsner, J. K. (2000). Behind the mask: a psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio.Journal of Architectural Education. 53(4): 194-206.
  29. Pourmohamadi, M &Gero, J.S. (2011). LINKOgrapher: An Analysis Tool to Study Design Protocols Based on FBS Coding Scheme. International Conference on Engineering Design. Technical University of Denmark. ICED11: 15 - 18
  30. Pourmohamadi, M, (2013). Designerly Ways of Customising. A thesis of PHD, Faculty of Architecture and Design and Planning, The University of Sydney, Australia.
  31. Quayle, M. (1985). Idea book for teaching design. Mesa; Arizona, PDA Publisher Corporation.
  32. Rahimian, F &Ibrahim, R. (2013). Behavioural Design Protocols in Architectural Design Studios: A Microscopic Analysis. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 21 (1): 235 – 258.
  33. Robin, S &Tiago Forin. (2015). Characterizing the work of coaching during design reviews. School of Engineering Education, Purdue University. West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
  34. Rogers, Julies. (1996). The concept of framing and its role in tutor – student negotiation during desk critiques in the architectural design studio. the university of Texas. PhD
  35. Saghafi, M.R & Franz, J & Crowther, PH. (2010). Crossing the Cultural Divide: A Contemporary Holistic Framework for Conceptualising Design Studio Education. 2ND International conference on Design Education. Univercity of  new south wales. Sedney.
  36. Salama, A.M. &Wilkinson, N. (2007). Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Gateshead: Urban International Press.
  37. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books. New York.
  38. Schön, D. (1985). The Design Studio. An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials. London: RIBA Publications.
  39. Schön , D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for Teaching in the Professions. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco.
  40. Till, J. (2005). Lost judgment. In E. Harder (Eds.). EEAE prize 2003-2005 writings in architectural education. Copenhagen: EAAE: 164-181
  41. Wendler, V.W & Rogers, J.S. (1995). The design life space: verbal communication in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 12(4): 319–335.
  42. Webster, H. (2008). Architectural Education after Schön: Cracks, Blurs, Boundaries and Beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment. 3(2): 63-74.
  43. Willenbrock, L. L. (1991). An Undergraduate Voice in Architectural Education. In T. A. Dutton (Ed.), Voices in Architectural education: Cultural politics and pedagogy. New York: Bergin and Gravey: 97- 119
  44. Zandimoheb, A & Dezhdar, O & Talischi, G. (2020). Codification conceptual framework of education for students in architecture Primary design studios: A qualitative content analysis. HAFT HESAR JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. 9(33 ): 5-22.