پیشبینی خودتنظیمی دانشجویان در کارگاه طراحی معماری بر اساس سبکهای حل مسئله و باورهای انگیزشی | ||
| صفه | ||
| دوره 34، شماره 3 - شماره پیاپی 106، 1403، صفحه 23-38 اصل مقاله (652.37 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/sofeh.2024.104796 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| فرهاد کاروان* | ||
| دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد همدان، همدان، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| پیشینه و اهداف: یکی از نظریات جدید در آموزش معماری رویکرد سازندهگرایی است. در این رویکردِ یادگیری بر فعال بودن یادگیرنده در ساختن دانش و فهم تأکید میشود. بر پایة اصول آموزشهای نوین، یادگیرنده باید خودراهبر باشد و این امر در آموزش معماری نیز ضروری بهنظر میرسد. از طرف دیگر، دروس طراحی در آموزش معماری به مجموعة وسیعی از اطلاعات، مهارتها، و شایستگیها نیاز دارد. در حرفة معماری و بهخصوص در حین فرایند طراحی، لازم است دانشجو از فرایند یادگیری آگاهی داشته باشد. در روش نوین یادگیری، مدرس معماری نقش راهنما و تسهیلگر را برای رویارویی دانشجو با مسائل پیچیده (نظیر مسائل طراحی) دارد و دانشجو نیز برای پژوهش، جمعآوری اطلاعات، و تأمل کردن در رسیدن به راهکار درست تلاش میکند و هنگامی که فراگیران در یادگیری خودتنظیم باشند، بهتر طراحی می کنند. ازآنجاکه در آموزش مهندسی از مقولة شناخت و خودتنظیمی کمتر گفته شده و نیز کاربرد یادگیری خودتنظیم در طراحی فرایندی مهم و توأم با پیچیدگیهای خاص خود است، در این پژوهش به بررسی یادگیری خودتنظیمی درکارگاه طراحی معماری با توجه به مؤلفههای انگیزشی و شناختی آن پرداخته شده است. تاکنون در ادبیات نظری مرتبط پژوهشی با در نظر گرفتن سبکهای حل مسئله درکنار باورهای انگیزشی بهمنظور پیشبینی خودتنظیمی دانشجویان در کارگاه طراحی معماری صورت نگرفته است. ازآنجاکه افزایش قدرت طراحی از اهداف مهم آموزش در معماری است، بنابراین باید عوامل مرتبط با روند طراحی شناسایی شوند. روش: پژوهش حاضر از نوع همبستگی است. جامعة آماری این پژوهش دانشجویان کارشناسی رشتة معماری دانشگاه آزاد واحد همدان در سال تحصیلی 1399-1400 به تعداد 398 نفر بود که جهت انتخاب نمونه از همه دانشجویان یادشده برای شرکت در پژوهش دعوت شد و با توجه به جدول مورگان، که 196 نفر نمونه مورد نیاز بود، و نیز تعداد دانشجویی که حاضر به شرکت در پژوهش شدند (178 نفر) و سپس با حذف پاسخهای ناقص به پرسشنامهها (28 مورد)، درنهایت، 150 مورد با روش در دسترس انتخاب و وارد تحلیل آماری شدند. یافتهها و نتیجهگیری: بنابر یافتههای پژوهش، راهبردهای سازگارانة حل مسئله و باورهای انگیزشی توان پیشبینی خودتنظیمی در یادگیری را دارند. به این معنی که رابطة مستقیم و معنیداری بین استفادة دانشجو از راهبردهای سازگارانة حل مسئلة او با خودتنظیمی در یادگیری وجود دارد. اما راهبردهای ناسازگارانة حل مسئله توان پیشبینی خودتنظیمی در یادگیری را به صورت منفی دارد. دانشجویانی که از سبکهای حل مسئلة سازگارانه استفاده میکنند، بهتر میتوانند در یادگیری خود نظم ایجاد کنند. همچنین یافتههای دیگر پژوهش بیانگر رابطة باور انگیزشی با خودتنظیمی در یادگیری است، ولی با واکنشهای هیجانی دانشجو نسبت به تکلیف طراحی (مؤلفة عاطفی) ارتباطی ندارد. بر اساس این یافتهها میتوان چنین تبیین کرد که باورهای انگیزشی به طرح یک الگوی عمومی شناختی ـ اجتماعی از انگیزش میانجامند. باور دانشجو در مورد عمل به تکلیف طراحی (مؤلفة انتظار) و نیز نسبت به علاقه و اهمیت یک تکلیف طراحی (مؤلفة ارزشی) میتواند به خودتنظیمی در یادگیری دانشجو منتهی شود. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| باورهای انگیزشی؛ خودتنظیمی؛ سبک حل مسئله؛ کارگاه طراحی؛ یادگیری طراحی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Predicting Student Self-Regulation in the Architectural Design Studio Based on Problem-Solving Styles and Motivational Beliefs | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Farhad Karvan | ||
| Faculty of Art and Architecture, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Background and objectives: Among the new theories in architecture education is that of constructivist approach. This learning approach emphasises the activeness of the learner in building knowledge and understanding. Based on the principles of modern education, the learner must be self-directed, and this seems necessary in architecture education as well. On the other hand, design courses in architecture need a wide range of information, skills, and competences. In the profession of architecture and especially during the design process, it is necessary for the student to be aware of the learning process. In the new way of learning, the tutor plays a role of a guide and facilitator for the student to face complex issues (such as design), and the student also tries to research, collect information, and reflect to achieve the right solution. In other words, self-regulated learners will design better. Since cognition and self-regulation are under-discussed in engineering education, and also due to complexities of the application of self-regulated learning in design, the present research investigates self-regulated learning in an architectural design studio with regard to its motivational and cognitive components. Little has been done so far about problem-solving styles and motivational beliefs to predict students’ self-regulation in architectural design studios, and hence the need to identify factors related to the design process in a context of increasing emphasis on design capabilities. Methods: The current research is correlational. The statistical population of this research was 398 undergraduate students of architecture at Hamedan Azad University in the academic year of 2019-2019, and a sample of 150 was selected using the available method. According to Morgan’s table, 196 sample people were needed. In order to select the sample, all undergraduate students of architecture were invited to participate in the research, and among them 178 people agreed to participate in the research, 28 of the questionnaires were incomplete and were excluded from the research, and 150 were included in the statistical analysis. Results and conclusion: Research results showed that adaptive problem solving strategies and motivational beliefs can predict self-regulation in learning. This means that there is a direct and significant relationship between the student’s use of adaptive problem solving strategies and self-regulation in learning. But incompatible problem solving strategies can negatively predict self-regulation in learning. Students who use adaptive problem solving styles are better able to create order in their learning. Also, other results of the research showed that there is a relationship between motivational belief and self-regulation in learning, but it is not related to the student’s emotional reactions to the design assignment (emotional component). Based on these results, it can be concluded that motivational beliefs suggest a general cognitive-social pattern of motivation. Student’s belief about doing the design assignment (expectation component), student’s belief about the interest and importance of a design assignment (value component) can predict self-regulation in student learning. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Self-regulation, Design learning, Problem-solving styles, Motivational beliefs, Design studio | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Arami, Z., G. Manshaee, A. Abedi, and T. Sharifee. “The Comparison of Motivational Beliefs, Metacognitive Skills and Self-Regulation Learning between Gifted & Ordinary Students of the City of Isfahan”. New Educational Approaches, 24 (2016): 59-70. (In Persian) Avsec, Stanislav and Magdalena Jagiello-Kowalczyk. “Investigating Possibilities of Developing Self-Directed Learning in Architecture Students Using Design Thinking”. Sustainability, 13 (2021): 4369. Balashov, E., I. Pasichnyk, R. Kalamazh, and T. Zdrobylko. “Reflexive Competence in Metacognitive Monitoring of Learning Activity of HEI Students”. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(1) (2020): 28-36. Bakhshi, M., M.R. Ahanchian. “A Proposed Model to Predict Academic Achievement: The Role of Critical Thinking and Self-Regulated Learning Strategies”. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, no. 52 (2013):153-163. (In Persian) Bandura, A. Social Foundation of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Precentor Hall, 1986. Brookfield, S.D. “Self-Directed Learning”. in International Handbook of Education for the Changing World of Work, R. Maclean and D. Wilson (Eds.), Dordrecht: Springer, 2009, 2615-2627. Cassidy, T. “Problem-solving Style, Achievement, Motivation, Psychological Distress and Response to a Simulated Emergency”. Counseling Psychology Quarter, 15(4) (2006): 325-332. Cassidy, T. and C. Long. “Problem-solving Style, Stress, and Psychological Illness: Development of a Multifactorial Measure”. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35 (2013): 265-277. Cassidy, T. and E. Burnside. “Cognitive Appraisal, Vulnerability and Coping: An Integrative Analysis of Appraisal and Coping Mechanisms”. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 9(3) (2012): 261-279. Cuyvers ,Katrien, Piet Van den Bossche, and Vincent Donche. “Longitudinal Case Study Research to Study Self-Regulation of Professional Learning: Combining Observations and Stimulated Recall Interviews Throughout Everyday Work”. in Methods for Researching Professional Learning and Development, Springer, 2022, 579–600. Ghonim, Mohammed. “Design Thinking in Architecture Education: Issues, Limitations, and Suggestions”. in Proceedings of the International Architectural Design Conference on Design and Nature, Archdesign, Istanbul, Dakam. vol. 16, 2016, 553-561. Hassankhouei, E, A. Rezvani, V. Ahmadi, and F. Hajiarbabi. “Design and Validation of a Capability Recognition Model in Creative Architecture”. Journal of Psychological Science, vol. 21, no. 114 (2022): 1229-1250. (In Persian) Kavousi, S., P.A. Miller, and P.A. Alexander. “Modeling Metacognition in Design Thinking and Design Making”. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., 30 (2020): 709-735. Kwan, Y.W. “Psychometric Properties of a Chinese Version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey”. Learning Environments Research, vol. 23, no. 2 (2020): 167-184. Loksa, Dastyni, Lauren Margulieux, Brett A. Becker, Michelle Craig, Paul Denny, Raymond Pettit. “Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming Education: Theories and Exemplars of Use”. ACM Transactions on Computing Education. vol. 22, no. 4 (2020): 1-31. Mozafar, F., Ghasemi, V., and M. KianErsi. “Improving Architectural Primary Design Learning through Enhanced Self-regulation Learning Factors in Basic Architectural Design Studio”. Urban Managment, vol. 16, no. 47 (2017): 415-432. (In Persian) Nikkar, M., E. Hojat, and A. Izadi. “An Explanation to The Goal construct and its Application in Generating Motivation in Architecture Novice”. Journal of Architecture Studies, vol. 2, no. 3 (2013): 85-106. (In Persian) Pintrich, P.R. The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-regulated Learning. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press, 2000. Pintrich, P.R. and E.V. De Groot. “Motivational and Self-regulated Learning Components of Classroom Academic Performance”. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 82, no. 1 (2002): 33-40. Prather, James. “Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming Education: Theories and Exemplars of Use”. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., 2022, 1946-6226,1-ART1. Prather, James, Brett A. Becker, Michelle Craig, Pauly Denny, Dastyni Loksa, Lauren Margulieux. “What Do We Think We Think We Are Doing? Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming”. Conference on International Computing Education Research, 2020. Qadampour, E. and Z. Sarmad. “The Role of Motivational Beliefs in Help-seeking Behavior and Academic Progress of Students”. Journal of Psychology, vol. 7, no. 2 (2003): 112-126. (In Persian) Ranjbar Mohammadi, R., M. Saeidi, and S. Ahangari. “The Effect of Self-Regulated Learning Instruction on Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking: PLS-SEM Approach”. Journal of School Psychology, vol. 11, no. 2 (2022): 51-61. (In Persian) Ryan, R.M. and J.P. Connell. “Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization: Examining Reasons for Acting in two Domains”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 57, no. 5 (1989): 749-761. Sands, Phil and Aman Yadav. “Self-Regulation for High School Learners in a MOOC Computer Science Course”. Association for Computing Machinery, New York: NY, 2020, 845-851. Saif, A. Modern Educational Psychology, Psychology of Learning and Instruction. Tehran: Dowran, 2017. (In Persian) Silva, Leonardo, Antonio José Mendes, Anabela Gomes, Gabriel Fortes Cavalcanti de Macêdo. “Regulation of Learning Interventions in Programming Education: A Systematic Literature Review and Guideline Proposition”. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 2021, 647-653. Soleimani, M. and H. Nadimi. “Explaining Effective Factors on Spontaneous Attendance of Architecture Students in a Design Workshop: Based on Grounded Theory”. Journal of Fine Arts: Architecture & Urban Planning, vol. 24, no. 3 (2019): 5-18. (In Persian) Treffinger, D.J., E.C. Selby, and G.I. Scott, G. “Understanding Individual Problem-solving Style: A Key to Learning and Applying Creative Problem-solving”. Learning and Individual Differences, 18 (2008): 390-401. West, S.A. “Problem-based Learning: a Viable Addition for Secondary School Science”. School Science Review, vol. 73, no. 265 (1992): 47-55. Williamson, S.N. “Development of a Self-rating Scale of Self-directed Learning”. Nurse Res., vol. 14, no. 2 (2007): 66-83. Zalazar-Jaime, M.F., L.A. Medrano. “An Integrative Model of Self-Regulated Learning for University Students: The Contributions of Social Cognitive Theory of Carriers”. Journal of Education, vol. 21, no. 2 (2020): 126-138. Zimmerman, B.J. “Self-regulation Involves More than Metacognition: A Social Cognitive Perspective”. Educational Psychologist, vol. 30, no. 4 (1995): 217-221. Zimmerman, B.J. and J.C. Clearly. “Self-regulation Empowerment Program: A School-based Program to Enhance Self-regulated and Self-motivated Cycles of Student Learning”. Psychology in the School, vol. 41, no. 51 (2004): 527-550. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 580 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 654 |
||