رويه‌هاي تربيتي در گونه‌هاي آموزش معماران؛ مطالعه موردي: بررسي گزينه‌هاي آموزشي پيشنهاد شده دهة اخير (96-1386) در دانشكده‌هاي معماري ايران

Training Processes within Various Types of Architectural Education (Case Study: enquiry of Alternative Educational Processes through Recent Decade (2007-2017) in Architectural Schools of Iran)

برخي، تمام و يا بيشتر روند آموزش معماري را فرايندي تربيتي مي‌دانند تا برنامه‌اي صرفاً آموزشي؛ اين موضوع دستمايه برخي پژوهش‌هاي حوزه آموزش معماري در ايران نيز بوده است. رويكردهاي تربيتي مبتني بر «جمع‌محوري» يا «فردمحوري»، موضوعي است كه در ادبيات علوم تربيتي و آموزش معماري مورد توجه است. بر اين اساس، دو طيف قابل تشخيص است: طيف تعامل «استادـ­شاگرد» با دو قطب «استادمحوري» و «شاگردمحوري»؛ و طيف تعامل «معمارـ­جامعه» با دو قطب «فردگرايي» و «جمع‌گرايي» در رويكردهاي آموزش معماري. با تركيب اين دو طيف، يك مدل نظري چهار قطبي از گونه‌بندي آموزش معماري تدوين شده، كه منتج به احصاء چهار حوزه تربيت معمار شده است. براي هر يك از حوزه‌ها، نمونه‌اي از گونه‌هاي آموزش معماري معاصر جايابي شده است. براي روشن شدن وضعيت تربيتي در روش‌هاي نوين آموزش معماري ايران، از روش تحليل محتواي گزارش 28 كار انجام شده در اين حوزه در ده سال اخير (منتشر شده به‌صورت مقاله در مجلات پژوهشي و سه دوره همايش آموزش معماري دانشگاه تهران) استفاده شده است. با مرور منابع مزبور، روش آموزشي كارگاهي با رويكرد طرّاحي معماري، شناسايي، و با استناد به متون تشريحي و ارزيابي مربوط به آنها، محتواي تربيتي هر روش در هشت طيف مفهومي از سوي نگارندگان تحليل شده است.

Some view architectural education as a training process that could not be reduced to a knowledge-based instruction. Such a theme has been searched through a body of academic researches about architectural aducation. This trend could be traced amongst historical types of architectural education as well as recent ones. So in this study it was first stablished a theoretical framework for studying human training within architectural context of eduction. The debate is organized in two spectrums: 1. Pupil-instructore relationship referes to the nature of educational process from view point of centrality of power and desire of the student as well as the same matter to the instructor. It becomes more important when we consider new trends of educational approaches are turning into student-based field that needs different behavioral system from instructors. 2. Individualist-socialist axis is a current debate of architectural discourse of post-modern era that has its strong roots in educational processes of architecture while its changing paradigm has also being approached mainly through architectural education. Ego-centric views of modern visual art have been spread throughout architectural debate so there is an internal barrier towards social architecture for educated architects. These two axial themes have enough supporting literature in educational sciences. Four types of training trends are so mentioned by an exapmlar for every one of them: 1.individualist-master based approach (ex. Tradition of beaux-ars school). 2. Individualist-student based approach (ex. new cognitive Pupil-instructore method of training). 3. Socialist-student based approach (ex. Critical method of architectural education of Thomas Dutton). 4. Socialist-master based approach (ex. Collaborative architectural education of Henry Sannof). The second part of this study dedicated to a qualitative survey of alternative educational approaches proposed within recent decade (2007-2017) in architectural schools of Iran. Here after reviewing of scientific journals of Iran and proceeds of three National Conferences of Architectural Education (the third, fourth and fifth conference of years 2008, 2011 & 2014 respectively), 28 cases were selected for content analysis. The selection was based on existing of a kind of educational process conducted in architectoral studio or there was at least such a proposition (even not realized). Using axial evaluation of contenta, the coding of their content was based on axial model of literature review mentioned above. For pupil-instructore relationship the four polar codes were: 1. Master’s being a model/ apprentices’ making a model; 2.Great architects’ being a model/apprentices’ making a model; 3. Instrutors’ framing process of studio/students’ producing process of studio; 4.Instructors’ tolerating process of studio/Instrutors’ framing process of studio. For individualist-socialist axis four polar codes were: 1.Emphasizing on social values/ Emphasizing on personal values 2.personal-driven creativity/Architectural institution-driven creativity. 3. Architectural institution-driven creativity/ social-driven creativity; 4. Individual working/Group working. Our analisis shows that there is a great trend towards student-driven processes that is vastly stemmed from normative view of creativity as basic of architecture while social reponcibility has attracted minor attentions. Another obvious aspect of these proposed methods is their attempt for going far from the tradition of Beaux-art that has been the main pattern of architectural education of Iran.