×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
Instructions for papers
For Authors Aim & Scope Contact
Original scientific article

AESTHETICISM BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE & EXPERIENCES IN ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION

By
Mayyadah L Abdulwahhab Orcid logo ,
Mayyadah L Abdulwahhab

Lecturer, Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq

Noor A. M. Aalhashem Orcid logo ,
Noor A. M. Aalhashem

Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq

Hiba Salih Meften Orcid logo ,
Hiba Salih Meften

Assistant Lecturer, Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq

Ashwaq Fadhel Muhkaber Alomari Orcid logo
Ashwaq Fadhel Muhkaber Alomari

Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq

Abstract

One of the essential aspects of education in architecture is aesthetic knowledge, which impacts creativity, the thinking process, and the evaluation of architectural quality. However, not many empirical studies were carried out in order to understand the development of aesthetic knowledge for architecture students of various levels. The current study analyzes the relationship between aesthetic experience and aesthetic knowledge for undergraduate architecture students using the Aesthetic Experience Questionnaire (AEQ). This method focuses on four components of the aesthetic experience, such as emotion, culture, perception, and flow experience, using a quantitative survey of 55 second-, third-, and fourth-year architecture students. The collected data were analyzed using Cronbach's Alpha, McDonald's Omega, descriptive statistics, and one-way ANOVA in order to measure the reliability of the test and to compare the aesthetic knowledge between the different educational levels. The overall reliability of the questionnaire was high, with Cronbach's Alpha = 0.822 and McDonald's Omega = 0.812. In the descriptive analysis, it is seen that the overall aesthetic knowledge of the second, third, and fourth year students developed respectively in the sequence of 3.833, 3.899, and 3.987. There were no significant differences among the academic years according to the ANOVA test (F=0.722, p=0.491) since there was no significant difference in students' aesthetic knowledge development across years. This research study is innovative since it makes a quantitative analysis of aesthetic knowledge development at different academic levels on the basis of an aesthetic experience model. The findings of the study stress the importance of curriculum development that includes experiential and reflective design-based learning approaches.

References

1.
Yu R, Gu N, Ostwald MJ. Architects’ Perceptions about Sustainable Design Practice and the Support Provided for This by Digital Tools: A Study in Australia. Sustainability. 2022;14(21):13849.
2.
Kharvari F, Kaiser LE. Impact of extended reality on architectural education and the design process. Automation in Construction. 2022;141:104393.
3.
Yang Q, Cruz-Garza JG, Kalantari S. Brain–computer interfaces as an architectural design tool: Feasibility and usability study. Automation in Construction. 2023;154:105011.
4.
Xiang X, Yang X, Chen J, Tang R, Hu L. A Comprehensive Model of Teaching Digital Design in Architecture that Incorporates Sustainability. Sustainability. 2020;12(20):8368.
5.
Neroni MA, Oti A, Crilly N. Virtual Reality design-build-test games with physics simulation: opportunities for researching design cognition. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation. 2021;9(3):139–73.

Citation

This is an open access article distributed under the  Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC) License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

Issue image
Issue 36, 2026
See full issue

Citations

Crossref Logo

0

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.