رتوریک و اقناع مخاطب: حلقۀ گمشده در روند آموزش در آتلیههای طراحی معماری | ||
| صفه | ||
| دوره 34، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 107، 1403، صفحه 41-57 اصل مقاله (475.92 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/soffeh.2024.105152 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| ریحانه خاقانپور شاهرضائی1؛ فاطمه مهدیزاده سراج* 2 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری معماری، دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2استاد دانشکدۀ معماری و شهرسازی، دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران، تهران، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| اهداف و پیشینه: آموزش معماری در دورة کارشناسی بر محور کارگاه طراحی معماری استوار است و شیوة نقد و کرکسیون متداولترین روش برای برگزاری جلسات کارگاه توسط معلمان معماری است. درواقع این شیوة آموزش مبتنی بر انجام کار توسط شاگرد و اصلاح آن توسط معلم است و یک روند رفتوبرگشتی اتفاق میافتد که در خلال آن دانشجو آموزش طراحی معماری میبیند. در پژوهشهای مختلفی به بررسی روشهای آموزشی در آتلیه، انواع کرکسیون و نقد پرداخته شده است. بهعلاوه دانش رتوریک (علم اقناع مخاطب)، از سوی پژوهشگران حوزة فلسفه و ادبیات بستر هر نوع ارتباط انسانی قلمداد شده است و برخی پژوهشگران حوزة معماری و سایر رشتههای هنری به بررسی آن پرداختهاند. ازآنجاکه ارتباط میان معلم و شاگرد اصلیترین وجه در آموزش طراحی است، نیاز به بررسی بیشتر در این زمینه با نگاهی به دانش رتوریک احساس میشود. بنابراین بررسی جلسة نقد و کرکسیون در کارگاه طراحی معماری و نوع ارتباطی که میان استاد و دانشجو شکل میگیرد، با توجه به دانش رتوریک و با هدف عرضة راهکارهایی برای تقویت این ارتباط، موضوع این پژوهش است. مواد و روشها: در این مقاله، با تکیه بر مطالعات کتابخانهاى و با روش استدلال منطقى، ضمن مرورى اجمالى بر کارگاه طراحی معماری و شیوههای آموزشی آن و با اتکا به تئوری موقعیت رتوریکال و روشهای رتوریک در اقناع مخاطب، سازوکاری برای برقراری مؤثرتر کرکسیون در جلسات کارگاه طراحی معماری عرضه میشود. نتایج و جمعبندی: بررسیها نشان میدهند که ماجرای کرکسیون و ارتباط میان معلم و شاگرد معماری را میتوان در قالب یک موقعیت رتوریکال و شامل هشت جزء تعریف کرد. ارتباط مؤثر میان معلم و شاگرد در این جلسه از طریق استفاده از بیانی واضح و قابلفهم و بیان نقدها و پیشنهادها بهروشنی و با منطق ایجاد میشود. بنابراین یک موقعیت اقناعی شکل میگیرد که آنها سخن یکدیگر را بفهمند و به اجماع نظری و فکری برسند. درنتیجه دانشجو طراحی معماری و مهمتر از آن «تعامل و برقراری ارتباط کلامی» را یاد میگیرد و میتواند در شرایط مختلف از طرح خود بهخوبی و قانعکننده دفاع کند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| آموزش طراحی معماری؛ کرکسیون؛ نقد معماری؛ رتوریک و اقناع | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Rhetoric and Persuasion: The Missing link in Educational Processes of Architectural Design Studios | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Reyhane khaghanpour shahrezaee1؛ Fatemeh Mehdizadeh Saradj2 | ||
| 1PhD Candidate in Architecture, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Background and objectives: Architectural education at the undergraduate level is centered on architectural design studios, and the prevalent method for conducting studio sessions by tutors is through critique. Essentially, the teaching approach is based on the development of the work by the student, and its subsequent refinement by the tutor, creating a reciprocal process in which the student learns architectural design. Various research studies have explored teaching methods within studios, types of critique, and even the role of rhetoric (the science of persuasion) as a foundation for human interaction. Given that the cruciality of relationship between the tutor and student, there is a need for further examinations in this regard, particularly with a focus on rhetorical knowledge. The present research, therefore, investigates critique sessions in architectural design studios and the type of communication between the teacher and student, considering rhetorical knowledge, and aims to provide solutions for strengthening this relationship. Methods: The research is based on a literature review and employs a logical-reasoning approach; while providing a general overview of architectural design studios and their tutorial methods. Based on the theory of rhetorical situation and rhetorical techniques in persuasion, it suggests a mechanism for establishing a more effective critique in architectural design studio sessions. Results and conclusion: The investigations indicate that critique processes and the relationship between the tutor and the student can be conceptualised within the framework of a rhetorical situation comprising eight elements. When the tutor occupies the role of the message sender, these elements include rhetor (tutor), message (interpretation of the student’s work), context (architectural design studio/ tutor and student knowledge), audience (student), subject (critique, topics related to the student’s work), purpose (critiquing the student’s work and providing feedback, teaching architectural design), exigency (improving the teaching process, architectural design education), and genre (tutor’s discourseusing clear, comprehensible, and persuasive language, offering critiques and suggestions logically and transparently). Alternatively, considering the student as the message sender, these elements consist of rhetor (student), message (presentation of the student’s work), context (architectural design studio,tutor and student knowledge), audience (tutor), subject (critique, topics related to the student’s work), purpose (introducing the work most simply and clearly), exigency (correcting the design, improving the teaching process, and developing student skills, including communication skills), and genre (student’s expression effectively and persuasively manner, both verbally and visually). Effective communication between the tutor and the student during these sessions is fostered through the use of a clear and understandable expression, coupled with the presentation of critiques and suggestions lucidly and logically. This approach facilitates the creation of a persuasive context in the discourse between the tutor and the student, allowing them to comprehend each other’s thoughts and arrive at a consensus. Through this intellectual consensus, architectural students learn, improve their design, and more importantly, acquire and practise interaction and verbal communication, ultimately enabling them to effectively defend their design convincingly in various scenarios. The results of this research can assist tutors and students in conducting more effective critique sessions. However, for the practical implementation of these proposed solutions, further extensive research and the generalisation of results across various situations are necessary. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Architectural design education, Critique, Architectural criticism, Rhetoric, Persuasion | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ahmadi, M. “The Nature of Rhetorical Criticism and its Importance in Literary Studies”. Practical Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism, vol. 2, no. 1 (2017): 46-63. (In Persian) ________ . “Rhetorical Criticism in Literary Studies”. PhD. thesis, Tehran university, Doctor of Philosophy in Persian Language and Literature, 2017. (In Persian) Alizadeh Miandouab, A., G. Akrami, and P. Nejati. “A Review of Critical Training in Architectural Design”. Bagh-e Nazar, vol.19, no. 111 (2022): 37-50. (In Persian) AmirKaveh, S. and S. Eslami. “The Method of Persuading the Audience in Nahj al-Balagha”. Islamic Social Research, vol. 22, no. 110 (2016): 175-214. (In Persian) Arida, S. “More Seeing in Learning”. PhD. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Doctor of Philosophy in Architecture, 2011. Attoe, W. Architecture and Critical Imagination. Persian translation by Amineh Anjom Shua’a, Tehran: Arts Academy Publications, 2006. (In Persian) Bailey, R.O. “The Digital Design Coach Enhancing Design Conversations in Architectural Education”. PhD. thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 2005. Beqiri, G. Rhetoric: How to Inform, Persuade, or Motivate your Audience. Available at: https://virtualspeech.com/blog/rhetoric-inform-persuade-motivate-your-audience Bitzer, L.F. “The Rhetorical Situation”. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1 (1968): 1-14. Buchanan, R. “Design and the New Rhetoric: Productive Arts in the Philosophy of Culture”. Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 34, no. 3 (2001): 183-206. Buck, D. Essentials for ENGL-121; Texts on Writing, Language, and Literacy. Howard Community College, 2020. Caballero, R. “The Role of Metaphor in Architects’ Negotiation and (Re)Construction of Knowledge Across Genres”. Metaphor and Symbol, vol. 28, no.1 (2013): 3-21. ________ . “Buildings That Move: Motion Metaphors in Architectural Reviews”. Iberica, no. 34 (2017): 89-110. Dannels, D.P. and K.N. Martin. “Critiquing Critiques A Genre Analysis of Feedback Design Studios”. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 22, no. 2 (2008): 135-159. El-Latif, M.A., K.S. Al-Hagla, and A. Hasan. “Overview on the Criticism Process in Architecture Pedagogy”. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 59(2) (2020): 753-762. Engbers, S.K. “Employing Rhetorical Theory in Design Education Practice”. Dialectic, 2(1) (2018): 81-95. Foss, S.K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Denver: Waveland Press, 2018. Gaffney, A.L.H. “Communicating About, In, and Through Design: A Study Exploring Communication Instruction and Design Students’ Critique Performance”. PhD. thesis, North Carolina State University, 2010. Goldschmidt, G., H. Hochman, and I. Dafni. “The Design Studio Crit: Teacher-student Communication”. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, vol. 24, no. 3 (2010): 285-302. Grant-Davie, K. “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents”. Rhetoric Review, vol.15, no. 2 (1997): 264-279. Howard, G.T. Dictionary of Rhetorical Terms, Xlibris Corporation, USA, 2010. Karbasi, A. “Steps in Architectural Education: An Experience”. Soffeh, vol. 21, no. 3 (2011): 17-26. (In Persian) Kelly, V. and M. Thiessen. “Have I Got a Proposition for You: Developing the capability for Compelling Arguments through Rhetorical Practice in the Design Studio”. in Design Research Society, University of Limerick, 2018, 2789-2800. Khaki Ghasr, A. and H. Poormahdi Ghaemmaghami. “Verbal Description and Architectural Education”. Soffeh, vol. 24, no. 3 (2014): 17-30. (In Persian) Last, S. Technical Writing Essentials: Introduction to Professional Communications, in the Technical Fields. University of Victoria (B.C.), 2019. Mehrdoust, E., A. Aminpoor, and H. Nadimi. “The Model of Criticism Application for the Use of Precedents in Architecture Design and Training”. Hoviat – e- shahr, vol.13, no. 1 (2019): 33-44. (In Persian) Nadimi, Z., K. Mondegari, and Z. Tafazzoli. “Integration in Architecture Education, Rethinking the Issue by Rhetorical Situation Model”. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 23, no. 92 (2022): 107-129. (In Persian) Oh, Y., et al. “A Theoretical Framework of Design Critiquing in Architecture Studios”. Design Studies, 34(3) (2012): 302-325. Rasouli, H. “Finding the Roots of the Basics of Communication Science in the Science of Rhetoric”. Journal of the Faculty of Literature and Humanities, no.160 (2001): 309-326. (In Persian) Schon, D. The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potential. London: RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust, 1985. Sharif, H. “Student-teacher Interaction in Architectural Design Studio: Teacher’s Critical Thinking & Students’ Creative Thinking”. Iranian Journal of Engineering Education, vol.16, no. 64 (2015): 23-38. (In Persian) Uluoǧlu, B. “Design Knowledge Communicated in Studio Critiques”. Design Studies, vol. 21, no. 1 (2000): 33-58. Utaberta, N., et al. “Upgrading Education Architecture by Redefining Critique Session in Design Studio”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, no. 102 (2013): 42-47. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 598 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 475 |
||