تحلیل درک هنرجویان از عوامل فیزیکی فضای آموزشی در راستای خودشکوفایی به روش Q (نمونه مطالعاتی: هنرستان‌های بم)
محورهای موضوعی : معماری
مریم کاردان
1
,
هوتن ایروانی
2
,
علی اکبری
3
,
علی عسگری
4
1 - گروه معماری، واحد اردستان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، اردستان، ایران.
2 - گروه معماری، واحد اردستان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،اردستان، ایران.
3 - گروه معماری، واحد یادگار امام خمینی (ره) شهرری، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
4 - گروه معماری، واحد شهر قدس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
کلید واژه: معماری هنرستان, معماری آموزشی, تحلیل عوامل کالبدی, خودشکوفایی آموزشی, فضا و یادگیری,
چکیده مقاله :
هم‌راستایی مشخصه‌های فیزیکی/کالبدی و روان‌شناختی هنرستان‌ها با سازوکارهای خودشکوفایی هنرجویان از تأثیرگذارترین عوامل ضمنی در روندهای یادگیری و استعدادیابی فراگیران است. یکی از معتبرترین داده‌ها در تحلیل این اثرگذاری، ذهنیت هنرجویان نسبت به ویژگی‌های فضاست. در این مطالعه، به روش Q و با رویکرد کمی در تحلیل‌های آماری، با مشارکت ۳۰ نفر از هنرجویان دو هنرستان در شهرستان بم، به تحلیل درک آنان از مشخصه‌های فیزیکی فضا با هدف ارتقا و تسهیل خودشکوفایی حین تحصیل پرداخته شده است. نتایج حاصل از تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی داده‌ها نشان می‌دهد که عواملی شامل «آسایش روانی و فیزیکی»، «امکانات و تجهیزات» و «کیفیت فضای آموزشی» قابل‌شناسایی هستند. از میان ۲۴ متغیر مشخص‌شده، بیشتر نقش را میزان دریافت نور طبیعی و روشنایی روز، کاهش و کنترل سروصدای مزاحم از داخل و بیرون کلاس و چیدمان صندلی‌ها و میزها متناسب با هر درس و انعطاف‌پذیری فضا در تغییر موقعیت مبلمان متناسب با نیازهای هر درس دارندهم‌راستایی مشخصه‌های فیزیکی/کالبدی و روان‌شناختی هنرستان‌ها با سازوکارهای خودشکوفایی هنرجویان از تأثیرگذارترین عوامل ضمنی در روندهای یادگیری و استعدادیابی فراگیران است. یکی از معتبرترین داده‌ها در تحلیل این اثرگذاری، ذهنیت هنرجویان نسبت به ویژگی‌های فضاست. در این مطالعه، به روش Q و با رویکرد کمی در تحلیل‌های آماری، با مشارکت ۳۰ نفر از هنرجویان دو هنرستان در شهرستان بم، به تحلیل درک آنان از مشخصه‌های فیزیکی فضا با هدف ارتقا و تسهیل خودشکوفایی حین تحصیل پرداخته شده است. نتایج حاصل از تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی داده‌ها نشان می‌دهد که عواملی شامل «آسایش روانی و فیزیکی»، «امکانات و تجهیزات» و «کیفیت فضای آموزشی» قابل‌شناسایی هستند. از میان ۲۴ متغیر مشخص‌شده، بیشتر نقش را میزان دریافت نور طبیعی و روشنایی روز، کاهش و کنترل سروصدای مزاحم از داخل و بیرون کلاس و چیدمان صندلی‌ها و میزها متناسب با هر درس و انعطاف‌پذیری فضا در تغییر موقعیت مبلمان متناسب با نیازهای هر درس دارند.
The alignment of the physical and psychological characteristics of conservatories with the self-actualization mechanisms is one of the most influential implicit factors in the learning and talent development processes of learners. While being in the space, the students are unconsciously affected by its constructive features, and this can be an advance or a hindrance in the way of learning. One of the most reliable data in the analysis of this effect is the students' mental perception of characteristics of the space. By understanding the space, they can provide valuable opinions on the design of the educational environments. In this study, with the Q method and a quantitative approach in statistical analysis, with the participation of 30 students of two conservatories in Bam city, their understanding of the physical characteristics of space has been analyzed with the aim of promoting and facilitating self-actualization during education. In this study, two contemporary art schools in Bam city were investigated in the field. The Hakim Farabi and Fadak art schools, which were built after 1990 and have some special architectural features, were selected. The steps of implementing this method include selecting the subject group (P), collecting factors (Q), sorting, interviewing, analyzing data, and finally factor analysis. First, 30 students were selected to conduct the research. In the first step, each student was asked to list 8 to 10 physical factors that, in his opinion, could affect him in the process of learning the lessons. By examining the factors mentioned, which were 278, it became clear that the students had mentioned 87 unique and non-repeating factors. At this stage, it was necessary to list the factors based on the frequency and importance of the item. The screening of the factors was carried out by a panel consisting of two university faculty members, one doctoral student, and one student as a representative of the statistical population. Three rounds of factor screening were conducted and finally 48 factors were identified. The extracted components were organized on a Likert scale and 10 students were asked to rate the components based on their importance from 1 to 5. Finally, based on the score obtained for each factor, 24 items were finalized as the Q set in this study. The results of the exploratory factor analysis of the data show that factors including "mental and physical comfort", "facilities and equipment" and "quality of educational space" can be identified. Among the 24 specified variables, most of the roles are the amount of receiving natural light and daylight, reducing and controlling annoying noise from inside and outside the classroom, and the arrangement of chairs and tables suitable for each course and the flexibility of the space in changing the position of the furniture according to the needs of each lesson. In addition, it was shown that characteristics such as number of students in the class, the presence of additional equipment such as a clock in the class and the smell of the air, have the least effect on the students' learning process.
1. Afusi, Z. A., Zarghami, E., & Mahdinejad, J. (2014). A Study on Designing Open Space School and its Relation with Improving Happiness among Students. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 4(S3).
2. Ahmadpoor Samani, S., & Ahmadpoor Samani, S. (2012). The Impact of Indoor Lighting on Students’ Learning Performance in Learning Environments: A knowledge internalization perspective. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(24), 127–136.
3. Akcay, C., & Akyol, B. (2012). Self Actualization Needs and Education of Participants in Lifelong Education Centers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.084
4. Bagherian Far, M., Nasr Esfahani, A. R., & Ahanchian, M. R. (2021). A study on the Indices of Optimal Teaching and Learning Environment Relevant to the Humanities Courses at Universities and the Extent of Attention Paid to Them. Journal of Curriculum Research, 10(2), 258–289. https://doi.org/10.22099/JCR.2021.6057
5. Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An Experimental Approach to Making Retail Store Environment Decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(Winter).
6. Barnes, C., Angle, J., & Montgomery, D. (2015). Teachers Describe Epistemologies of Science Instruction Through Q Methodology. School Science and Mathematics, 115(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12111
7. Barry, J., & Proops, J. (1999). Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6
8. Bilha, W. N., Evangeline, M. G., & Risper, O. (2020). Self Actualization and Entrepreneurship Education among Undergraduate University Students in Kenya. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Project Management (JEPM), 5 (1): 1-14.
9. Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57–71. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/1252042
10. Burger, J. M. (2010). Personality (8th Editio). Wadsworth Publishing.
11. Castilla, N., Llinares, C., Bravo, J. M., & Blanca, V. (2017). Subjective assessment of university classroom environment. Building and Environment, 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.06.004
12. Chan, K. M. K., Li, C. M., Ma, E. P. M., Yiu, E. M. L., & McPherson, B. (2015). Noise levels in an urban Asian school environment. Noise and Health, 17(74). https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.149580
13. Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2014). The evaluation of physical learning environments: A critical review of the literature. Learning Environments Research, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-9149-3
14. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P., & Howe, A. (2013). Creative learning environments in education-A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.004
15. DiSarno, N. J., Schowalter, M., & Grassa, P. (2002). Classroom Amplification to Enhance Student Performance. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990203400603
16. Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Models of learning space: integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3056
17. Fardlillah, Q., & Suryono, Y. (2019). Physical Environment Classroom: Principles and Design Elements of Classroom in Early Childhood Education. https://doi.org/10.2991/icsie-18.2019.23
18. Frana, J. F. (2013). Humanistic correctional programming: A test of self-actualization in a correctional cognitive behavioral program in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 8(1).
19. Franzenburg, G. (2009). Educational Intervision: Theory and Practice. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13(June), 37–43.
20. Genn, J. M. (2001). AMEE medical education guide no. 23 (part 1): Curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education - A unifying perspective. Medical Teacher, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590120063330
21. Gilavand, A., & Hosseinpour, M. (2016). Investigating the impact of educational spaces painted on learning and educational achievement of elementary students in Ahvaz, Southwest of Iran. International Journal of Pediatrics, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.22038/ijp.2016.6439
22. Granito, V., & Santana, M. (2016). Psychology of Learning Spaces: Impact on Teaching and Learning. Journal of Learning Spaces, 5(1).
23. Gurria, A., Williams, J. D., Schleicher, A., & OECD. (2018). PISA 2018 Results (Volume III) WHAT SCHOOL LIFE MEANS FOR STUDENTS’ LIVES. In OECD Retrieved from www pisa oecd org on March.
24. Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The Impact of School Environments: A literature review. Design Council.
25. Ibem, E., Alagbe, O., & Owoseni, A. (2017). A STUDY OF STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: CASE STUDY OF DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE, COVENANT UNIVERSITY, OTA OGUN STATE. INTED2017 Proceedings, 1. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2017.1455
26. Kaplan, S., & Kaplan, R. (1989). The Visual Environment: Public Participation in Design and Planning. Journal of Social Issues, 45(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1989.tb01533.x
27. Khedmatgozar, F., Shahcheraghi, A., Izadi, M. S. (2021). EXPLAINING THE CONSTRUCTURAL MODEL OF BEHAVIOR AND ARCHITECTURE IN LEARNING ENVIRONMENT. Urban and Rural Management, 20 (64) :41-52.
28. Lawati, E. (2019). A Study of Self-Actualization among High Education Students in Sultanate of Oman Human crying View Project. International Researchh Journal, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.21276/tr.2019.5.1.AN1
29. Leccese, F., Salvadori, G., Rocca, M., Buratti, C., & Belloni, E. (2020). A method to assess lighting quality in educational rooms using analytic hierarchy process. Building and Environment, 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106501
30. Leccese, Francesco, Rocca, M., & Salvadori, G. (2018). Fast estimation of Speech Transmission Index using the Reverberation Time: Comparison between predictive equations for educational rooms of different sizes. Applied Acoustics, 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.05.019
31. Lee, S. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2015). Effect of instruction with the self-Determined learning model of instruction on students with disabilities: A meta-Analysis. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50(2), 237–247.
32. Liebert, R., & Spiegler, M. (1997). Personality: Strategies and Issues (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
33. Marshall, M. (2012). Environmental Conditions and Their Influence on Academic Advising Offices. The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal, 14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26209/mj1461312
34. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and Personality (2nd ed.). Harper & Row.
35. Mahdzar, M.; Jaapar, A.; Zain, W.Z.W.M. (2022). High School Students’ Motivation Needs and Their Intentions to Pursue Tertiary Education. Proceedings 2022, 82, 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2022082037
36. Meresi, A. (2016). Evaluating daylight performance of light shelves combined with external blinds in south-facing classrooms in Athens, Greece. Energy and Buildings, 116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.01.009
37. Mihăescu, O. (2020). Towards a Responsive Understanding of Sustainable School Architecture, IOP Conference Series. Materials Science and Engineering; Bristol Vol. 960, Iss. 3, (Dec 2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/960/3/032106
38. Nauman, A. D., Stirling, T., & Borthwick, A. (2011). What Makes Writing Good? An Essential Question for Teachers. The Reading Teacher, 64(5). https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.64.5.2
39. Nazari R, Arash A. (2023). The special architecture of elementary school and its effect on social interaction, creativity and learning of students; A case study of Sidbar Jedgal Chabahar Primary School. Journal of Research on Issues of Education; 1 (70) :65-80.
40. Nazarpour, M.-T., & Norouzian-Maleki, S. (2019). Identifying the Effective Architectural Components for Promoting Students’ Learning by emphasizing the open spaces of schools on the basis of the document of the fundamental transformation of education. Studies in Learning & Instruction, 10(2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.22099/JSLI.2019.29978.2585
41. O’Brien, A. P., Chan, T. M. F., & Cho, M. A. A. (2008). Investigating nursing students’ perceptions of the changes in a nursing curriculum by means of the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) inventory: Results of a cluster analysis. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1548-923X.1503
42. Ostapczuk, M. S., Hugger, A., de Bruin, J., Ritz-Timme, S., & Rotthoff, T. (2012). DREEM on, dentists! Students’ perceptions of the educational environment in a German dental school as measured by the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure. European Journal of Dental Education, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2011.00720.x
43. Owen, C., & Owen, C. (2017). Rethinking learning a review of social and emotional learning for education systems. In Ghosts in the Machine.
44. Painter, S., Fournier, J., Grape, C., Grummon, P., Morelli, J., Whitmer, S., & Cevetello, J. (2013). Research on Learning Space Design: Present State, Future Directions. In June.
45. Parnell, R., & Procter, L. (2011). Flexibility and placemaking for autonomy in learning. Educational and Child Psychology, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2011.28.1.77
46. Parvizi, E., Ardestani, Z. A., Balash. F., (2022). Developing students' health by promoting attachment to place in school design: based on the archetype scheme. Journal of Educational Research; 11 (45) :20-40.
47. Pimentel, A. K. O., Farias, L. A., Nakayama, C. R., Leite, C. B. B., Duarte, C. G., & Leite, L. O. D. C. (2024). Maslow and the Environment: Integrating the Social Representation and the Theory of Needs. Ambiente & Sociedade, 27, e00147. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422asoc0147r1vu27l2oa
48. Pruslow, J. T., & Owl, R. H. R. (2012). Demonstrating the Application of Q Methodology for Fieldwork Reporting in Experiential Education. Journal of Experiential Education, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591203500207
49. Rashid Kalvir, H., Ghaseminezhad, M., Basharpoor, S., Abdi, A., & Mirjafarzadeh, S. (2019). The Effectiveness of Harm Reduction Training and Matrix Intervention Program on Academic Procrastination in Harmed Female Students from Relationship with Opposite Sex. Journal of Educational Psychology Studies, 16(35), 83-106. doi: 10.22111/JEPS.2019.5071
50. Raskin, N., & Rogers, C. (2019). Current Psychotherapies (D. Wedding & R. J. Corsini (eds.); 11 ed). Cengage Learning.
51. Sadeghi, E. O., Sadeghi, Y., & khadivi, H. (2023). Measuring the impact of the principles and design of the school environment on students' learning with an emphasis on biophilic architectural indicators (nature-oriented). Green Development Management Studies, 2(1), 129-138. doi: 10.22077/JGMD.2023.6471.1035
52. Samimi, Z., Shaban basim, F., & Soleymani, A. (2020). Explaining Sense of Self-actualization among Students on the Basis of Perceived Social Support and Social Capital. Social Welfare Quarterly, 20(78), 201–228. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.17358191.1399.20.78.1.1
53. Schreuder, E., van Erp, J., Toet, A., & Kallen, V. L. (2016). Emotional Responses to Multisensory Environmental Stimuli: A Conceptual Framework and Literature Review. SAGE Open, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016630591
54. SCHULTZ, D. P., & SCHULTZ, S. E. (2011). A History of Modern Psychology (J.-D. Hague (ed.); TENTH EDIT). Linda Schreiber-Ganster.
55. Scott-Webber, L., Abraham, J., & Marini, M. (2000). Higher education classroom fail to meet needs of faculty and students. Journal of Interior Design, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2000.tb00356.x
56. Shahrawat, A., & Shahrawat, R. (2017). Application of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in a Historical Context: Case Studies of Four Prominent Figures. Psychology, 08(07). https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2017.87061
57. Smith, T. J. (2013). Designing learning environments to promote student learning: Ergonomics in all but name. Work, 44. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-121493
58. Solomon, H., & Stephenson, W. (1955). The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and Its Methodology. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 50(272). https://doi.org/10.2307/2281274
59. Stoltzfus, J. R., & Libarkin, J. (2016). Does the room matter? Active learning in traditional and enhanced lecture spaces. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0126
60. Taylor, A., Enggass, K., & Pressman, A. (2009). Linking architecture and education: Sustainable design of learning environments. In Linking Architecture and Education: Sustainable Design of Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1353/cye.2010.0002
61. Temple, P. (2008). Learning spaces in higher education: An under-researched topic. In London Review of Education (Vol. 6, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460802489363
62. Till, H. (2005). Climate studies: Can students’ perceptions of the ideal educational environment be of use for institutional planning and resource utilization? Medical Teacher, 27(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590400029723
63. Vaziri, V., Karamati, S. (2017). The effect of satisfaction from architectural quality of learning environments on the student success. Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Urban Design, 5(1), 1-14.
64. UNESCO. (2017). Promoting learner happiness and well-being.
65. Yang, Z., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Mino, L. (2013). A study on student perceptions of higher education classrooms: Impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance. Building and Environment, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.08.030
66. Yorke, L., Rose, P., Bayley, S., Wole, D., & Ramchandani, P. (2021). The Importance of Students’ Socio-Emotional Learning, Mental Health, and Wellbeing in the Time of COVID-19. Riseprogramme.Org, October.
67. Zeeshan, M., & Ali, A. (2020). Self-Actualization among Students of Higher Education Institutions in Pakistan. IRASD Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 24–28.
