Analyzing the Different Criticism Methods in Architecture Studios

Architectural design is a major challenge faced by architecture students during their training period. This paper analyses architectural studios in order to find the weaknesses and strengths, and also to identify methods and tools that can be used to support both learning and teaching studio-based methods in architecture. The main purpose of this study was to analyze the different criticism and correction methods in architectural design courses and their effectiveness on student teaching-learning process. Current common learning style in architectural design studios has inherent problems, which results from the fact that professors teach students in ways that are mainly based on their personal experience. At the same time, professors who are sometimes professional architects can criticize their own professional insights and applied knowledge, however, they further tend to comment on the work of students, without having proper understanding of "criticism" or its application in architectural design educations. A professor in architectural studio must anticipate and examine a wide range of issues and factors. Criticism is one of the most important and effective factors in activation of design thinking. Hence, practice of "criticism" not only among professor and students, but also among classmates is very effective and necessary for transferring concepts, learning and communication. Therefore, a professor should have the art of criticism to provide opportunities for "criticism" among his/her pupils. In today’s education system, which is based on critique, all the efforts are aimed to increase students’ self-criticizing capability to able to manage their own projects. The main factors in the critique that are performed by the professors include the steps of: defining a design or explaining it, describing, analyzing, and architectural judgment according to the design. The current model in studios is based on ancient model that must be redefined in order to improve pedagogy state. In this research, different types of critique are examined such as desk criticism, group criticism, informal interaction, interim review, formal or final review and new evaluation methods such as peer criticism, public criticism, seminar, written criticism, panel discussion, exhibition and internet correction. Correction, like a dialogue, is a two-way relationship. The meetings between the teacher and the student are deliberately aimed at raising the mind and hands of the student as a designer, and both the teacher and the student know well that the design theme and the lines ahead of them are the ways to become a designer. The study population consisted of 57 male and female students of Urmia University in architectural design courses, which were divided into three different groups. Each group of students was asked what is the most effective way to transfer knowledge, experience, workshop knowledge & learning with regard to various types of corrections. The following results were obtained by comparing the answers of the three groups: students in the preliminary design courses (1) and (2) considered individual correction (desk criticism) and panel discussion more effective than other learning methods. Students of architectural design courses (1) and (2) did not consider individual correction as an appropriate method. They believed that group criticism and correction play a more effective role in learning. Students in design courses (3), (4) and (5) while emphasizing the effectiveness of group criticism, considered temporary delivery (interim review) as an effective learning method.