نوع مقاله : علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 مربى دانشکدة هنر و معمارى صبا، دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان

2 استادیار دانشکدة معمارى و شهرسازى، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان

3 استادیار دانشکدة هنر و معمارى صبا، دانشگاه شهید باهنر

چکیده

فرایند طراحی مداخلۀ مداوم در تصاویر با هدف دستیابی به ایده­ های خلاق است. این موضوع باعث شده تا در آموزش معماری تصاویر به مثابۀ محرک بصری برای ارتقای خلاقیت دانشجویان استفاده شوند. این اتفاق نظر هست که دانشجویان نباید مستقیماً از محرک بصری برای ایدۀ طراحی استفاده کنند، در این صورت دو ویژگی می‌تواند مؤثر باشد، ابهام محرک و تشابه ساختاری آن با مسئلۀ طراحی. چرا که این دو ویژگی باعث می‌شود تا نتوان برداشت سطحی از محرک بصری داشت. در این مقاله اثر این دو ویژگی در خلاقیت دانشجویان بررسی می‌شود. مقایسۀ این دو موضوع مشخص خواهد کرد کدام‌یک از آن‌ها در افزایش خلاقیت مؤثرتر است. بر این مبنا در این پژوهش محرک مبهم و واضح را دانشجویان تجربه می‌کنند. آن‌ها همچنین تصاویری با تشابه ساختاری و  نیز سطحی را تجربه می‌کنند. برای بررسی تأثیر هر نوع از محرک بصری بر خلاقیت دانشجویان از روش تحلیل واریانس استفاده می‌شود. خلاقیت طراحی آنان بر مبنای دو عامل «ابتکار» و «تحقق ­پذیری» سنجش می‌شود. نتایج حاکی از آن است که تشابه ساختاری تأثیر چندانی در عامل ابتکار ندارد؛ اما ابهام تصویر در خلاقیت از طریق افزایش عامل ابتکار اثر می‌گذارد. هیچ‌کدام از انواع محرک بصری در عامل تحقق­ پذیری مؤثر نیستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Visual Stimuli Impacts on Students’ Creativity

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Ali Ashraf Ganjouei 1
  • Moahmoud Reza Saghafi 2
  • Mohammad Iranmanesh 3

1 Lecturer, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Isfahan University of Art

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Isfahan University of Art

3 Assistant Professor, Saba Faculty of Art and Architecture, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman

چکیده [English]

Design could be defined as an iterative process of manipulating graphical representations to generate creative ideas. As such, a graphical representation plays the role of visual stimulus for creativity in architectural education. Nonetheless, as an accepted convention in architectural education, students are expected to not directly utilize such graphics as their design concept. Therefore, graphical representations can stimulate design creativity in either of the two roles: their ambiguity or their structural similarity to the given design problem. This paper examines the effectiveness of graphical representations in each of these two roles. To this end, undergraduate students were asked to design a building in response to shown graphical representations with direct similarity, structural similarity or ambiguousness. Three different lecturers then assessed the resulting designs in terms of their originality and feasibility. The analysis of variances for these assessments demonstrated that structural similarity has no meaningful impact on stimulating originality. Conversely, ambiguousness could be useful in generating new ideas. None of the visual stimuli influenced feasibility of design solutions, however.

  1. Ball, Linden J. & Thomas C. Ormerod & Nicola J. Morley. “Spontaneous Analogising in Engineering Design: A Comparative Analysis of Experts and Novices”, in Design Studies 25, No. 5 (2004), pp. 495–508.
  2. Casakin, Hernan. “Visual Analogy as a Cognitive Strategy in the Design Process: Expert versus Novice Performance”, Journal of Design Research 4, No. 2 (2004), p. 124.
  3. ________ . “Visual Analogy, Visual Displays, and the Nature of Design Problems: The Effect of Expertise”, in Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 37, No. 1 (2010), pp. 170–188.
  4. Denis, Michel & Stephen M. Kosslyn. “Scanning Visual Mental Images: A Window on the Mind”, in Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/ Current Psychology of Cognition, 18(4) (1999) pp. 409-465.
  5. Dixon, Raymond A. “Experts and Novices: Differences in Their Use of Mental Representation and Metacognition in Engineering Design”, Access in: http://hdl.handle.net/2142/18376, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2011.
  6. Finke, Ronald A. Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions in Visualization. Psychology Press, 2014.
  7. Goel, Vinod. Sketches of Thought. MIt Press, 1995.
  8. Goldschmidt, Gabriela. “Modeling the Role of Sketching in Design Idea Generation”, in An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, London: Springer, 2014, pp, 433–450.
  9. Goldschmidt, Gabriela & Anat Litan Sever. “Inspiring Design Ideas with Texts”, in Design Studies 32, No. 2 (2011), pp. 139–155.
  10. Goldschmidt, Gabriela & Maria Smolkov. “Variances in the Impact of Visual Stimuli on Design Problem Solving Performance”, in Design Studies 27, No. 5 (2006), pp. 549–569.
  11. Heylighen, Ann. In Case of Architectural Design. Critique and Praise of Case-Based Design in Architecture, Thesis for: PhD in Engineering Science: architecture, 2000.
  12. Heylighen, Ann & Ilse M. Verstijnen. “Close Encounters of the Architectural Kind”, Design Studies 24, No. 4 (2003), pp. 313–326.
  13. Lindman, Harold R. Analysis of Variance in Experimental Design, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
  14. Linsey, J.S. & Kristin L. Wood & Arthur B. Markman. “Modality and Representation in Analogy”, in Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 22, No. 02 (2008), pp. 85–100.
  15. Mou, Tsai-Yun & Chun-Heng Ho. “Novices’ Satisfactory Design, Some Implications for Performance and Satisficing in Character Design”, in Design Computing and Cognition’08, Springer, 2008, pp. 473–490.
  16. Novick, Laura R. & Keith J. Holyoak. “Mathematical Problem Solving by Analogy”, in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 17, No. 3 (1991), pp. 398.
  17. Ozkan, Ozgu, & Fehmi Dogan. “Cognitive Strategies of Analogical Reasoning in Design: Differences between Expert and Novice Designers”, in Design Studies 34, No. 2 (2013), pp. 161–192.
  18. Purcell, A. Terry & John S. Gero. “Effects of Examples on the Results of a Design Activity”, in Knowledge-Based Systems 5, No. 1 (1992), pp. 82–91.
  19. Schon, Donald A. & Glenn Wiggins. “Kinds of Seeing and Their Functions in Designing”, in Design Studies 13, No. 2 (1992), pp. 135–156.
  20. Stacey, Martin & Claudia Eckert. “Against Ambiguity”, in Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 12, No. 2 (2003), pp. 153–183.
  21. Suwa, Masaki & Barbara Tversky. “What Do Architects and Students Perceive in Their Design Sketches? A Protocol Analysis”, in Design Studies 18, No. 4 (1997), pp. 385–403.
  22. Tseng, Winger SW & Linden J. Ball. “How Uncertainty Helps Sketch Interpretation in a Design Task”, in Design Creativity 2010, Springer, 2011, pp. 257–264.
  23. Verstijnen, Ilse M. & Cees van Leeuwen & G. Goldschmidt & Ronald Hamel & J.M. Hennessey. “Sketching and Creative Discovery”, in Design Studies 19, No. 4 (1998), pp. 519–546.
  24. Zahner, Doris & Jeffrey V. Nickerson & Barbara Tversky & James E. Corter & Jing Ma. “A Fix for Fixation? Rerepresenting and Abstracting as Creative Processes in the Design of Information Systems”, in AI EDAM 24, No. 2 (May 2010), pp. 231–244.
  25. https://www.campbellcole.co.uk/blogs/news/inspired-by-purism
  26. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/648448046317073820/
  27. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/253397916511975342/
  28. https://www.pinterest.com/henkvanhooff/james-stirling-1926-1992/
  29. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/381750505883555909/
  30. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/373306256583367243/