برداشت صحیح از نمونه ها در ایده پردازی معماری
The True Mapping from Precedents in Architectural Ideation
اشتراک گذاری
اشتراک در شبکه های اجتماعی :
گزارش خطا
استفاده از نمونه ها توسط دانشجویان در طراحی معماری رواج دارد، اما مرز کپی برداری و برداشت صحیح روشن نیست. سوال این است که برداشت صحیح چیست و چگونه می توان رابطه بین ایده طراحی را با نمونه ارزیابی نمود؟ در این پژوهش با هدف کشف تعریف برداشت صحیح، ابتدا ساختاری به عنوان سطوح بهره گیری از آثار بر اساس طبقه بندی سطوح اندیشه از به یادآوردن، فهمیدن، بهکاربستن، تحلیل کردن، ارزیابی کردن تا آفریدن تدوین میشود. بر اساس این ساختار، تحلیل میشود که الگوهای برداشت صحیح موجود در ادبیات کدام سطح را دربردارند. با بررسی کلیه روشهای ارزیابی برداشت، چهار تعریف از برداشت صحیح بر اساس چهار رویکرد فرآیند برداشت، خلاقیت ایده، اجتناب از درجازدن و برداشت ساختاری ارائه میشود و برای هر تعریف روشی برای ارزیابی رابطه بین ایده و نمونه معرفی میشود. نتایج پژوهش نشان می دهد برداشت صحیح فراتر رفتن از سایر سطوح مواجهه با اثر و رسیدن به سطح آفریدن است که نتیجه آن شباهت ساختاری با نمونه، تکرار نشدن ویژگی‌های نامطلوب و ارتقای بداعت و کیفیت ایده طراحی است. ارزیابی بداعت و کیفیت ایده طراحی و نوع شباهت بین ایده و نمونه توسط داوران خبره به عنوان روش ارزیابی پیشنهاد میشود.
Architecture precedents are important sources to educate architecture students. Inappropriate use of precedents may lead to design fixation. The use of precedents is common in architectural design and there is no clear difference between copy and inspiration. Therefore it is important to know what the true mapping is and how we can evaluate the relation between precedent and design outcome.
In this paper with the aim to recognize the true mapping, we describe the different mapping models and analyze those based on bloom taxonomy from remember layer to understand, apply, analyze and create layers. Based on this model 20 steps must be done: recognizing, recalling, remember, interpreting, exemplifying, classifying, summarizing, inferring, comparing, explaining, executing, implanting, differentiating, organizing, attributing, checking, critiquing , generating, planning and producing. The Eilouti model is more comprehensive than others and comprise all layers, but it is a complicated model and difficult to reuse by educators. The models compared based on new findings of design theories. Six models are categorized in normative models and one is categorized empirical. Therefore there is no mapping model based on studding the design behavior of expert designers, observing designers during design process and interacting between designer and design idea presentation. Thus none of these models didn’t use by other researchers or in architecture education. But visual analogy model became an educational method because of its empirical merit.
We investigated all different methods that evaluate relation between precedent and design idea. There are two approaches, first approach evaluate idea without considering precedent. In this approach good idea is creative ones and four creativity parameters, novelty, quality, quantity and diversity, are evaluated in qualitative, quantitative, or synthesis methods. Second approach evaluates design idea in comparison with precedent based on originality, design fixation and similarity type definitions. Some evaluation methods such as quantity, diversity or repeated ideas are used in conditions that designers produced all possible ideas and are not usable in normal conditions. Some methods need to predict all possible solutions by researcher and count all precedent features that almost impossible in architectural design. Therefore most of the quantitative methods are not usable in architectural education and qualitative methods based on expert judges are preferred.
We presented four mapping definitions based on four different approaches, mapping process, creative idea, design fixation, and structural mapping. For every definition there is an evaluation method. The comprehensive definition is offered that true mapping is going beyond levels of thinking and achieve creation level that leads to structural similarity and enhances novelty and quality of design idea. The similarity between source and idea and novelty and quality of idea must be evaluated based on this definition. Knowing the true definition and having a mapping process model cannot guarantee the design results. Students copy the source examples because lack of design ability, idea presentation skills or ideation ability. Thus there is need to purposeful and designed practices to help students. Finding educational ways to enhance students’ ability in true mapping are recommended for Future studies.
(1.0 مگابایت)
دانلود مقاله
مشخصات مقاله
خاکزند، مهدی؛ مظفر، فرهنگ؛ فیضی، محسن؛ عظیمی، مریم (1388)، قیاس بصری و جایگاه آن در آموزش خلاق طراحی معماری، نشریه علمی پژوهشی فناوری آموزش، دوره 4 شماره 4، صص 153-162.
ذاکری، محمد حسین (1391)، بهره گیری خلاقانه از پیشینهها در طراحی معماری، رساله دکتری معماری، دانشگاه تهران، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشکده معماری.
سیف، علی اکبر (1394)، سنجش فرآیند و فرآورده یادگیری: روشهای قدیم و جدید، نشر دوران، تهران.
کلامی، مریم (1393). دانش شخصی (ضمنی) و مولد اولیه طراحی، راهکارهایی جهت بهره گیری از دانش شخصی در یافتن مولد اولیه در آغاز آموزش معماری، رساله دکتری تخصصی معماری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی.
لاوسون، برایان (1388)، طراحان چگونه می اندیشند (ابهام زدایی از فرآیند طراحی)، ترجمه حمید ندیمی، ویرایش سوم، انتشارات دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران.
محمودی، سیدامیرسعید؛ ذاکری، سیدمحمدحسین (1390)، استخراج دانش کاربردی از پیشینهها و تاثیر آن برخلاقیت در طراحی معماری، نشریه هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، 3(47)، صص 39-50.
میرجانی، حمید (1388)، رجوع معمارانه به گذشته، جستجوی روشی جهت کسب دانش عملی طراحی از طریق تجربه مصادیق معماری، رساله دکتری معماری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
ندیمی، حمید (1389)، نگاهی به ارزیابی طرح های معماری، نشریه صفه، دوره 20، شماره 50، صص 9 تا 19.
ندیمی، حمید؛ شریعت راد، فرهاد (1391)، منابع ایده پردازی معماری جستاری در فرآیند ایده پردازی چند معمار از جامعه حرفهای کشور، نشریه هنرهای زیبا- معماری و شهرسازی، دوره 17 شماره 2، صص 5-14.
Agogué, M; Kazakçi, A; Hatchuel, A; Masson, P; Weil, B; Poirel, N & Cassotti, M (2014), The Impact of Type of Examples on Originality: Explaining Fixation and Stimulation Effects, Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(1), pp. 1-12.
Akin, Ö (2002), Case-based instruction strategies in architecture, Design Studies, 23(4), pp. 407-431.
Anderson, L. W; Krathwohl, D. R & Bloom, B. S (2001), A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives, Allyn & Bacon, ???????.
Bloom, B. S (1956), Taxonomy of educational objectives, Vol. 1: Cognitive domain, McKay, New York.
Cai, H; Do, E. Y.-L & Zimring, C. M (2010), Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation: an empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration sources in creative design, Design Studies, 31(2), pp. 146-168.
Cardoso, C & Badke-schaub, P (2011a), Fixation or inspiration: Creative problem solving in design, Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), pp. 77-82.
Cardoso, C & Badke‐Schaub, P (2011b), The influence of different pictorial representations during idea generation, Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), pp. 130-146.
Casakin, H (2004), Visual analogy as a cognitive strategy in the design process: Expert versus novice performance, journal of Design Research, 4(2), pp. 253-268.
Casakin, H (2005), Design aided by visual displays: a cognitive approach, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 22(3), pp. 254- 274.
Casakin, H(2010), Visual analogy, visual displays, and the nature of design problems: the effect of expertise, Environment and planning. B, Planning & design, 37(1), pp. 170.183.
Casakin, H & Goldschmidt, G (1999), Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education, Design Studies, 20(2), pp. 153-175.
Chan, J; Fu, K; Schunn, C; Cagan, J; Wood, K & Kotovsky, K (2011), On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples, Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(8), pp. 81-104.
Cheng, P; Mugge, R & Schoormans, J. P (2014), A new strategy to reduce design fixation: Presenting partial photographs to designers, Design Studies, 35(4), pp. 374-391.
Chiu, F.C (2015) Improving your creative potential without awareness: Overinclusive thinking training, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 15(0), pp. 1-12.
Christensen, B. T & Schunn, C. D (2007), The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: The case of engineering design, Memory & cognition, 35(1), pp. 29-38.
Chrysikou, E. G & Weisberg, R. W (2005), Following the wrong footsteps: fixation effects of pictorial examples in a design problem-solving task, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), pp. 134-148.
Cross, N (2007), Forty years of design research, Design Studies, 28(1), pp. 1-4.
Dean, D. L; Hender, J. M; Rodgers, T. L & Santanen, E. L (2006), Identifying quality, novel, and creative ideas: Constructs and scales for idea evaluation, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(1), pp. 646-698.
Doboli, A; Umbarkar, A; Subramanian, V & Doboli, S (2014), Two experimental studies on creative concept combinations in modular design of electronic embedded systems, Design Studies, 35(1). pp. 80-109.
Dorst, K (2008), Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen, Design Studies, 29(1), pp. 4-11.
Eckert, C; Stacey, M & Clarkson, P (2000), Algorithms and inspirations: creative reuse of design experience, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Greenwich 2000 International Symposium: Digital Creativity, pp.1-10.
Eckert, C; Stacey, M & Earl, C (2005), References to past designs, Studying designers, 5(2005), pp. 3-18.
Eilouti, B. H (2009), Design knowledge recycling using precedent-based analysis and synthesis models, Design Studies, 30(4), pp. 340-368.
Gentner, D (1983), Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy, Cognitive science, 7(2), 155-170.
Gentner, D & Markman, A. B (1997), Structure mapping in analogy and similarity, American Psychologist, 52(1), pp. 45-56.
Goldschmidt, G (2001), Visual analogy: A strategy for design reasoning and learning, Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education, pp. 199-220.
Goldschmidt, G (2011), Avoiding design fixation: transformation and abstraction in mapping from source to target, Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), pp. 92-100.
Goldschmidt, G & Smolkov, M (2006). Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance, Design Studies, 27(5), pp. 549-569.
Goldschmidt, G & Tatsa, D (2005), How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity, Design Studies, 26(6), pp. 593-611.
Gonçalves, M; Cardoso, C & Badke-Schaub, P (2013), Inspiration peak: exploring the semantic distance between design problem and textual inspirational stimuli, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1(4), pp. 215-232.
Green, S; Southee, D & Boult, J (2014), Towards a Design Process Ontology, The Design Journal, 17(4), pp. 515-537.
Heylighen, A & Neuckermans, H (2002), Are architects natural case-based designers? Experts speaking, The Design Journal, 5(2), pp. 8-22.
Howard, T. J; maier, A. M; Onarheim, B & Friis-Olivarius, M (2013), Overcoming design fixation through education and creativity methods. Paper presented at the The 19th International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 13. pp. 139-148.
Jansson, D. G & Smith, S. M (1991), Design fixation, Design Studies, 12(1), pp. 3-11.
Leitner, M; Innella, G & Yauner, F (2013), Different perceptions of the design process in the context of DesignArt. Design Studies, 34(4), pp. 494-513.
Linsey, J; Tseng, I; Fu, K., Cagan, J; Wood, K & Schunn, C (2010), A study of design fixation, its mitigation and perception in engineering design faculty, Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(4), pp. 3-14.
Moreno, D. P; Hernández, A. A; Yang, M. C; Otto, K. N; Hölttä-Otto, K; Linsey, J. S; Linden, A (2014), Fundamental studies in Design-by-Analogy: A focus on domain-knowledge experts and applications to transactional design problems, Design Studies, 35(3), pp. 232-272.
Ozkan, O & Dogan, F (2013), Cognitive strategies of analogical reasoning in design: Differences between expert and novice designers, Design Studies, 34(2), pp. 161-192.
Peeters, J; Verhaegen, P.A; Vandevenne, D & Duflou, J (2010), Refined metrics for measuring novelty in ideation, IDMME Virtual Concept, pp. 1-4.
Purcell, A. T & Gero, J. S (1996), Design and other types of fixation, Design Studies, 17(4), pp. 363-383.
Sarkar, P & Chakrabarti, A (2011), Assessing design creativity, Design Studies, 32(4), pp. 348-383.
Tsenn, J; Atilola, O; McAdams, D. A & Linsey, J. S (2014), The effects of time and incubation on design concept generation, Design Studies, 35(5), pp. 500-526.
Van Boeijen, A; Daalhuizen, J; Zijlstra, J & van der Schoor, R (2013), Delft Design Guide: Design Methods: BIS Publishers, ????.
Youmans, R. J (2011), The effects of physical prototyping and group work on the reduction of design fixation, Design Studies, 32(2), pp. 115-138.
Youmans, R. J & Arciszewski, T (2014), Design fixation: Classifications and modern methods of prevention, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 28(02), pp. 129-137.
مسابقات
جوایز
نشریات
