شناسایی عوامل موثر بر اجتماع پذیری در محیط آموزش معماری وتحلیل تعامل بین آن ها (با رویکرد تصمیم گیری چندمعیاره فازی)

با توجه به تاثیر محیط کالبدی آموزش معماری بر یادگیری دانشجویان مربوطه، ضرورت دارد تا مولفه‌های موثر در این رابطه شناخته شود. درخصوص آموزش معماری، نقش تعاملات و روابط میان دانشجو و استاد حائز اهمیت است. اجتماع پذیری به عنوان قابلیتی کیفی از محیط آموزشی می تواند امکان تعاملات اجتماعی بین دانشجویان معماری با اساتید و نیز با یکدیگر را افزایش داده و موجب ارتقاء فرآیند یادگیری معماری گردد. تحقیق پیش رو با فرض اینکه اجتماع پذیری محیط بر یادگیری دانشجویان تاثیرگذار است، به بررسی عوامل محیطی تاثیرگذار بر اجتماع پذیری در محیط آموزش معماری و ارزیابی روابط میان آن ها می پردازد. برای پاسخ به سوال تحقیق، پس از شناخت مفاهیم اولیه در باب اجتماع پذیری و تعاملات اجتماعی و نیز محیط آموزش معماری، از طریق روش تحلیل منطقی و استدلال قیاسی، مدل پیشنهادی از عوامل موثر بر اجتماع پذیری پرداخته شده است. سپس از طریق روش دلفی فازی(نظرسنجی از خبرگان و اساتید معماری)، شاخصه ها در مدل پیشنهادی با درنظرگرفتن نقش آن ها در محیط آموزش معماری غربالگری گردید. در مرحله بعدی، به منظور سنجش روابط میان این عوامل از روش دیماتل فازی استفاده شده است. نتایج به دست آمده عوامل موثر بر اجتماع پذیری در محیط آموزش معماری را به صورت شش دسته کلی نشان داد که عبارتند از: عناصر فیزیکی، عوامل فضایی معماری، معانی زیباشناختی، احساس امنیت، معنایی ادراکی و عملکردی فعالیتی. در بین عوامل اصلی عناصر فیزیکی تاثیرگذارترین و عملکردی فعالیتی تاثیرپذیرترین شاخص و مهمترین عامل در هنگام طراحی معماری است.

Identification of Factors Affecting Sociopetality in the Educational Environment of Architecture and Analyzing the Interaction between Them via F. MCDM (Fuzzy Multiple Criteria DecisionMaking Approach)

It seems that many environments are built on the tastes, personal values and perceptions of designers, or under the influence of the teachings of an architectural style. Therefore, regardless of the quantitative aspects, it is required to pay attention and apply the perceptible meanings of the environment that can be pleasant or unpleasant from the user's point of view. Considering the relationship between man and the built environment as the basis for determining the environmental characteristics and especially, the physical characteristics in architectural studies in Iran is new. About the design of educational environments of architecture, social interactions between the students themselves and between them and the professor can help to exchange experiences and information and provide a favorable context for the education of architecture and architectural design. Sociopetality, as a qualitative feature of the educational environment can increase the possibility of social interactions between architecture students themselves and between them and the professors and promote the learning process of architecture. This study assumes that this goal can be achieved through the creation of sociopetal environments that enable social interaction. Therefore, environmental factors affecting sociopetality in the educational environment of architecture are investigated and the relationships between them are evaluated. This research is an applied, descriptiveanalytical study that is carried out using fuzzy mathematical modeling. After identifying the basic concepts of sociopetality, social interactions as well as the educational environment of architecture, the proposed model of factors influencing sociopetality was obtained through logical analysis and deductive reasoning. Then, the obtained factors were screened using Fuzzy Delphi method, and to evaluate their accuracy, a questionnaire was developed and some experts were asked to fill it. The main method used in this study is of Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods, which is one of the most important methods in evaluating causeeffect relationships (Lin, et al, 2018) (Tseng, Chiu, 2013), and because of the ambiguity and uncertainty of the problem, it was decided to solve it using fuzzy theory. Therefore, the relationships between factors and their effects were investigated using fuzzy dematel method. In this study, the population included all architecture professors (with a history of teaching and attending in the architectural environment) as experts aware of the research topic. Finally, by summarizing all the comments and presenting the categorization including all the items, the main factors were divided into six general categories, which were confirmed using Delphi method, as follows: Physical elements: They determine the physical structure and provide the facilities required for the use of space. They are one of the basic human needs for comfort and convenience in a place and increase the possibility of using the environment and social interactions. Therefore, it is necessary that light, sound and temperature in the educational environment of architecture do not disturb the user (student and professor) and dissuade him/her from attending in the environment. Spatialarchitectural elements: These are the elements of the physical environment, that enable the realization of a behavioral pattern by creating territories. Things like the dimensions, size and geometry of space, spatial relationships creating visual connection and spatial integration, the presence of natural elements as well as artificial elements, such as urban elements, stairs or water, can encourage people to stay and sit together and start an interaction. Aesthetic meaning: This category indicates characteristics such as novelty, diversity, harmony and spatial proportions. The proportion between content (aesthetic) meanings and current activities in educational environment of architecture influences learning. Sense of security: Security is seen as a social factor affecting sociopetality that provides the ground required for the presence of individuals. Providing adequate light and accessibility for specific groups are of factors helping to create the sense of security. Semanticperceptual elements: The meaning of the environment at different emotional, sensational, referential, evaluative, and prescriptive levels can affect the user of space. The physical environment also acts in relation to emotions and experiences, and aids the user's perception. Concepts such as invitingness, flexibility of the environment, etc. encourage students to be present in the learning environment, and enhance the students’ social interactions and learning process by enabling changes in environmental capabilities (such as furniture) according to their needs. Functionalactivity: By adapting current behavioral patterns to behavior settlements, presence and activity in the environment can be enhanced and common contexts for group behaviors in students can be created by creating a sense of belonging. Accountability activity and active employment (the possibility of various activities in place) as well as the presence of a space for interaction and conversation help the students' interactions and thus their learning. Also, based on the interaction analysis and the relationship between the factors and subfactors influencing sociopetality, the following notes can be mentioned: “Functionalactivity” factor with a net susceptibility value of 0.94 is the most affected factor on sociopetality in an educational environment of architecture. In other words, this factor is the main issue to be solved by the affecting factors. In fact, the realization of sociopetality in the educational environment of architecture depends on this factor. Physical elements with an effectiveness value of 0.87 is the most effective factor on sociopetality in educational environment of architecture. In other words, it is the most important factor among those influencing sociopetality and should be prioritized when designing the environment. Also, Spatialarchitectural elements with a difference of 0.09 is the 2nd most effective factor that affects perceptualsemantic, aesthetic, sense of security and functionalactivity factors, and enables different activities to be realized. Thus, light and lighting, odor and temperature, dimensions and size, geometry, spatial relationships, and the presence of natural and architectural elements were the main subfactors affecting the sociopetal environment and playing a role in the creation of such an environment.