COMPARATIVE ANALYSISRESEARCH METHODOLOGY

SUBMITTED TO-

DR. AHRAR

SUBMITTED BY-

APOORVA SINGH

M.ARCH 1ST SEM (ARCHITECTURE PEDAGOGY)

1. To analyse the difference in the dissertations of the student in two semesters. To compare the two dissertations and find out the

changes in approach, re-thinking, methodology and ultimately the understanding of conclusion.

To understand the meaning of RSEARCH by studying the difference between finding, gathering and compiling of information

and by concluding with new thinking or ideas to it.

HEADS CREDENTIALS

Name of the student MOHD. HARIS BIN ARIF

Semester 1ST semester 4TH semester

Name of the Guide Ar. Mohd. Saquib (Assistant Professor) Ar. Mohd. Saquib (Assistant Professor)

Name of the TopicPresent Scenario of Architecture Education in context

with past and future.

Teacher, students practises and their impact on

learning spaces in architectural education

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

DISSERTATION 1TOPIC- Present Scenario of Architecture Education in context with past and future.SEMESTER- 1st SemesterGUIDE- Ar. Mohammad Saquib

The world has shown remarkable changes in the last few decades. Architectural education too, is no exception. New innovations have changed the course of

history, so also of style and structure of the architectural education programme. The very purpose of starting architecture education in India and the purpose

as it is viewed today, offer a totally diversified view. The programme over the years has become more matured and comprehensive but it could not keep up

the pace with the fast growth in the professional practice. The gap today, between education and profession is awesome. Many schools of architecture have

sprung up in the recent times and a shortage of able teachers is being experienced. The cumulative effect of all these is fast leading to falling standards and

architectural firm being more cautious choosy in checking the credentials of the incumbent fresh architectural hands. This dissertation sketches out the

history of architectural education in Indian context and concludes with some suggestions which would possibly lessen the downslide of architectural

education and consequently of the profession.

It could be argued that the history of Architecture of the last five centuries is the history of aspects of interdisciplinary, mainly in the way of thinking and

creating spatial manifestations of our social and cultural life. Starting from a multidisciplinary expertise possessed by one person in the Renaissance,

architecture has progressively passed through the classical periods to those aspects of interdisciplinary of modernist architecture, defined around the

sciences and then to those of Post Modernism, defined around the humanistic sciences and later on around the new construction technologies of the High-

Tech architecture of the 80s.

Nowadays, architectural education and practise are experiencing a shift of Interdisciplinary characterized by the coordinator, articulating and dominant role

of digital technologies. In this new situation the collaboration between architects, architecture education and architecture educators appear to be increasingly

necessary a condition. Any creative section takes place in a digital environment which affects all aspects of architectural form from the more abstract and

conceptual to its pure materiality. New architectural ideas and concepts related to the generation of forms that correspond to new conceptions of human and

social life, of space and time of nature and context, of speed and change, of communication and globalization, of complexity and order, of stability and

movement support and sustain this new condition.

In this context the education of architects and more specifically, architecture education, is progressively transforming in order to keep abreast with the

incredibly fast development of technological possibilities and infrastructures; and more informed about the amazingly wide variety of totally new

construction materials and techniques more aware of the rapid deterioration of the environment and of the imperative necessity for a built environment, less

energy-consuming and more sustainable, more attentive to an increasingly unstable labour market and increasingly specialised professional practice, more

conscious of the tremendously rapid transformations of the logic and the ideas which generate contemporary architecture, more sensitive to he unbelievably

fast-changing values and attitudes of our contemporary culture, more responsive to the rapid transformations of our everyday life, more responsive to the

demand for new forms of interdisciplinary collaboration for generating new forms of contemporary architecture.

PREFACE

ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF 8 STEP MODAL-1. FORMULATION OF RESEARCH-

I. Proper formulation is not done, while reading through the dissertation it seems the student got deviated from the topic.

II. The student could not mention the AIM/OBJECTIVES of the dissertation and it got catered. For example. For aim, to write

TO ANALYSE instead of TO STUDY, the aim is the name of the topic of dissertation itself which is misguiding, objectives

are very elaborative, instead of being to the point he wrote whole para.

2. CONCEPTUALIZING-I. NEED/ SCOPE of the topic is not mentioned.

II. HYPOTHESIS of the project is not drawn.

III. RATIONALE is also not mentioned, student has directly jumped onto the methodology.

IV. DELIMITATIONS are also mentioned.

V. Study design is also not prepared, whether what type of research it is going to be.

3. CONSTRUCTING AN INSTRUMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION-I. He did mention the data collection as a step in the methodology but, did not mention any tool/ instrument for collecting

data, as according to the topic it requires more of interviews from exerts, architects, professors and even students, but

nothing as such is mentioned nor done in the report.

II. None of the primary sources are mentioned, but references are mentioned at the end of the report.

III. Only case studies are performed and literature studies done, but we can say that conclusion drawn by the student is the

perspective of his own thoughts as he did not ask the point of view of others.

4. SELECTING A SAMPLE-I. As proper is not collected so no step of sampling is performed, and the report is not reliable/validate/.

5. WRITING A RESERCH PROPOSAL-I. Content is descriptive and it got scattered, intro of the topic we can is okay, but, the actual problem or aim is not clear.

II. Objectives are even translucent, as when the aim is not clear, the objectives designed can be misleading too.

III. Hypothesis is not mentioned.

IV. Measurement procedure can not be drawn as there are no figures or percentage to be calculated.

V. Appendix is not mentioned

6. COLLECTING DATA-I. Data collected, one can say is not reliable as it has no significance with what was actually required.

7. PROCESSING DATA-I. It is not applicable only, as when collected is non reliable, so how can the coding/ decoding, or editing of the data can be

done.

II. Neither the representation of data is applicable.

8. WRITING A RESEARCH-I. References are drawn.

II. No bibliography/appendices

III. No variable/no evaluation/ no questionnaires.

DISSERTATION 2TOPIC- TEACHERS STUDENTS PRACTISES AND THEIR IMPACT ON LEARNING SPACES IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATIONSEMESTER- 4th semesterGUIDE- AR. MOHAMMAD SAQUIB

The form and function of the constructed on- campus environment, particularly classrooms(e.g. lecture theatres, tutorial rooms) and other formal places of

learning within it(e.g. libraries, laboratories) have remained largely unchanged for seven centuries, apart from obvious technical advances. This institutional

architecture has provided an optimum environment for prevailing teacher-centred practises—lectures supplemented by tutorials—concerned primarily with the

one-way delivery of information to students.

Architecture institutes require more versatile spaces, as well as clusters of facilities offering a variety of options for students to work in different ways, and

which also increases the ability for teachers to adopt different instructional approaches. These spaces would afford students greater responsibility for, and

ownership and control of, their physical learning environments. But such changes need to be accompanied by broad efforts to overcome the separation of

“formal” learning environments such as classrooms, libraries and labs, on the one hand and, on the other, “informal” social spaces such as café and student

lounges which has characterised traditional student campus design.

An abstract from the movie, “Harry Potter and The Philosophers Stone”

“he emerged into the strangest- looking classroom he had ever seen. In fact, it didn’t look like a classroom at all, more like a cross between someone’s attic

and an old fashioned tea shop. At least twenty small, circular tables were crammed inside it, all surrounded by chintz arm chairs and fat little poufs.

Everything was lit with a dim, crimson light; the curtains at the windows were all closed, and the many lamps were draped with red scarves. It was stiflingly

warm, and the fire was burning under crowded mantelpiece was giving off a heavy sickly sort of perfume as it heated a large copper kettle. The shelves

running around the circular walls were crammed with dusty- looking feathers, stubs of candles, many packs of tattered playing cards, countless silvery

crystal balls, and a huge array of tea cups.”

This enchanting description of a classroom, at the fictitious Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry captures three fundamental ideas, about learning

spaces.

First, all learning takes place in a physical environment with quantifiable and perceptible physical characteristics. Whether sitting in a large hall, underneath a

tree, or in front of a computer screen, students are engulfed by surroundings. Specific targets within the environment draw the students attention, such as arm

chairs, scarves and tea cups, and they continuously monitor the ambient properties such as light of the lamps, the smell of the kettle, and the warmth of the fire.

PREFACE

Second, students do not touch, see, or hear passively; they feel, look and listen actively. Students can not attend all the environmental information bombarding

them at any given time; their ability to gather and understand incoming information is limited. Through automatic and controlled processes, students select

information for consideration. They try to understand what they are sensing by piecing bits of information

together from the bottom up and by applying existing thoughts and preconceptions from the top down. A classroom with circular tables and comfortable arm

chairs may look strange but students may direct their attention to particular targets in the learning environment that they find more interesting or important. For

some it may be instructors engaging chemistry demonstrations. For others, it may be silvery crystal ball on the shelf. In any learning environment, student

manage their limited cognitive resources by actively selecting environmental information for further consideration.

Third, the physical characteristics of learning environments can affect learners emotionally, with important cognitive and behavioural consequences. Although,

emotional reactions to environmental stimuli have been shown to vary widely across individuals and activities, most students would probably find learning

difficult in a classroom that is stiflingly warm. Conversely, environments that elicit positive emotional responses may lead not only to enhanced learning but

also to a powerful, attachment to that space.

The importance of “Place” in the Teaching and Learning Process

The discourse on the built environment of the campus now needs to address explicitly the relationship between the “places” provided on-campus and the quality

of the student learning experience. By the virtue of the university campus, and the s[paces within it, as an active agent in the learning process, the campus

environment is part of the learning experience and spaces need to be silent teachers.

At the site of individual lesson or instructional episode, the “place”, of teaching and learning plays a vital role in how the process is experienced by the

participants? A practising architect has commented:

Space is neither innocent nor natural: it is a instrument of the political; it has a performative aspect for whoever inhabits it; it works on its occupants, space

prohibits, decides what may occur, lays down the law, implies a certain order, commands and locates bodies.

The lecture theatres and instructional spaces of the traditional campus have functioned in exactly this way, being the manifestation of particular power relations

between teacher and student, and reinforcing traditional, narrowly defined roles. In contrast to the uniformity and restrictions imposed by traditional classroom

settings, this study argues that it should be the intention of universities to create places of learning which contains the possibility for multiple and contrasting

experiences.

The tools developed for this study achieved 71% response rate. Respondents selected trends that they expected to increase; the top five all involved the

application of IT. In some cases, this had a direct relationship to physical space, such as technology enhanced social spaces and use of networking across the

institution.

ANALYSIS ON THE BASIS OF 8 STEP MODAL-

1. FORMULATION OF RESEARCH-I. Formulation is proper. And author is clear with his understanding of the topic and how he needs to proceed?

II. Findings are contextualised as in starting itself he mentioned the percentage of response he received from the interviews.

III. Although, a major drawback or a blunder is author did not formulated the aim of the dissertation and objectives designed are

misleading.

IV. Reviewing of literature is not mentioned but the immense work is done for case studies of JAMIA itself, and MNIT, MIT,

AMU.

V. Conceptual and theoretical framework has been developed which is drawn in introduction itself.

2. CONCEPTUALIZING-I. NEED/ SCOPE of the topic is mentioned and explained thoroughly.

II. HYPOTHESIS of the project is not drawn.

III. RATIONALE is also not mentioned.

IV. DELIMITATIONS are mentioned.

V. Study design is also not prepared, whether what type of research it is going to be.

3. CONSTRUCTING AN INSTRUMENT FOR DATA COLLECTION-I. He did mention the data collection as a step in the methodology and even prepared 4 tools for collecting the data.

II. Tools used- questionnaire for teachers/ students, observing students of JMI, international case studies.

4. SELECTING A SAMPLE-I. Random selection of the samples, conducted for period of 4 weeks.

II. 4 institutions were monitored for sampling.

III. 100 samples were taken(20 teachers and 80 students).

IV. Handouts of questionnaires were provided to students/teachers, some of them were mailed.

V. Sampling was quantitative

5. WRITING A RESERCH PROPOSAL-I. Content written is good, descriptive but at times caters from the exact path, but aim is not clear.

II. Objectives are even translucent, as when the aim is not clear, the objectives designed can be misleading too.

III. Hypothesis is not mentioned.

IV. Can not judged as, findings drawn are on the basis of observations and not calculative.

V. Appendices are mentioned, depicting the “analysis of findings from questionnaires”/ methodology used,

6. COLLECTING DATA-I. Data collected, was analysed with help of literature reviews(web/printed/journals/books), interviews(telephonic,

personal), 4 international case studies and observing students.

II. Questionnaires were framed(teachers/ students)

III. Response rate was calculated- teachers(64%) 21 responses to 33 invitations, students(51%) 82 responses to 159

invitations.

IV. Majorly senior faculties and 1st and 2nd year students responded.

V. Conducted in a period of 4 months.

7. PROCESSING DATA-I. Author processed the data he collected, and the drawn some pictographic descriptions, depicting the teacher student

relation.

II. Findings drawn were depicted graphically.

III. Findings were not calculative or mathematical to be coded or decoded, they were the behavioural responses to the

interviews and questions asked about the spaces and impact of spaces on teacher/ students.

IV. Results were analysed to explore the overall rate of change predicted.

8. WRITING A RESEARCH-I. References are drawn.

II. bibliography/appendices were mentioned.

III. Conclusions were drawn keeping in mind all the aspects and the requirements of the dissertation.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BOTH TOPICS ON THE BASIS OF 8 STEP MODAL-

S.NO. STEPS TOPIC 1 TOPIC 2

1. Formulation of researchNo proper formulation, no defined

aims/objectives, no clarity, nor focused

Focused, properly formulated, contextualised, proper

procedure for review was followed,

2.Conceptualizing a

research proposal

Not conceptualised, nor any study design was

mentioned

To a certain extent as capered to the previous research,

it was conceptualised, but no study design

3.

Constructing an

instrument for data

collection

No instrumentation was used, conclusions

were self drawn.

Various tools were used for collecting data,

observations of students as also processed, as a whole

in this research methodology actually evolved from

compilation.

4. Selecting a sample No selection of samples/Random sampling was done, handouts were prepared,

followed by personal and telephonic interviews.

5.Writing a research

proposal

Improper way of writing research, steps were

missing

Improved way of writing proposal, author was more

clear about the understanding of research, but still did

not mention hypothesis, aims and even the rationale.

6. Collecting data No data collection

On the basis of interviews, from primary sources,

confidentiality is mentioned, just the no. of people

interviewed are mentioned not their names. Percentage

of responses is also calculated.

7. Processing dataNot applicable as author did not undergo the

step of data collection.

Through pictographic/graphical representation some

data is processed, rest of the findings are based upon

the behavioural impacts and aspects, so it is non

calculative, hence, no depiction or statistical calculation

needed.

8. Writing a research reportReferences were written, no outline was

developed, no bibliography

Outline was developed, but some way got catered,

references and bibliography were drawn, appendices

were mentioned

CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM BOTH THE STUDIES-

1ST SEMESTER 2ND SEMESTERAuthor is not clear to what he intend to study with the

dissertation.

Author had a clear intentions to study the impact of

spaces, but he got deviated with the impact of teacher

on student and vice versa.

He ended up with the self drawn conclusions and even

the accepted study format for architectural education,

as he did not go through thorough study.

He did a good collection of data, but findings are not

based on figures and facts, findings are more impact on

teacher and student.

First dissertation cannot be called as a Research as

nothing new was generated nor evolved out of the

research.

Conclusions drawn are new as the author formulated

those results and outcomes after going through various

reviews and literatures, including international case

studies and even holding various interviews.

MY CONCLUSIONS -

1. For the above mentioned report, I would conclude

by saying that it was merely a documentation of the

topic, as neither the reviews were studied nor the

literatures were read.

2. All the conclusions drawn were hypothetical, with

references mentioned but no validity or reliability

of the same.

1. I would conclude, that, the above mentioned

dissertation to an extent can be called a Research,

as at the end with all permutations and

combinations something new was evolved.

2. But it also left with blunders like no aim, no

hypothesis, no rationale, so in a way or so it is not

a research, as it missed a one or two steps from the

modal.

…end…