Explaining a Model of Indicators Affecting Architecture Students’ Creativity with an Emphasis on Creativity-Based Teaching Methods and Quality of the Physical Learning Environment by Using the Fuzzy Delphi Method

Dehghan Koroki, Maryam; Norouzi, Maliheh; Qasemi, Mohsen

doi:10.22034/ijumes.2026.2075074.1341

Explaining a Model of Indicators Affecting Architecture Students’ Creativity with an Emphasis on Creativity-Based Teaching Methods and Quality of the Physical Learning Environment by Using the Fuzzy Delphi Method

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Maryam Dehghan Koroki

Maliheh Norouzi

Mohsen Qasemi

Department of Architecture, Ba.C., Islamic Azad University, Bam, Iran

10.22034/ijumes.2026.2075074.1341

Abstract

Contemporary approaches to architectural education emphasize that creativity emerges from the interaction between the physical learning environment, pedagogical strategies, and students’ experiential engagement. Enhancing creativity-oriented architectural learning requires identifying key indicators that shape this process. This study aims to determine and explain the indicators influencing the creativity of architecture students, with emphasis on creativity-based instruction and the quality of the physical environment. The research is analytical–applied and follows an interpretive methodological paradigm with developmental characteristics. Data were collected through documentary and library studies. Initial conceptual indicators were extracted using content analysis and inductive reasoning based on theoretical foundations and prior research. Subsequently, the Fuzzy Delphi Method was applied, and a 17-item questionnaire was distributed to 15 experts using the snowball sampling technique. Results from the third Delphi round confirm 11 final indicators, among which “representation culture” (mean = 4.41), “digital technologies” (mean = 4.36), and “design thinking” (mean = 4.25) displayed the highest influence. The findings highlight three essential components for improving architectural education: spatial design that supports design thinking, digital representational capabilities, and organizational support mechanisms. Applying these validated indicators can improve studio environments, strengthen creative learning processes, and enhance the quality of architectural outcomes.

Graphical Abstract

Explaining a Model of Indicators Affecting Architecture Students’ Creativity with an Emphasis on Creativity-Based Teaching Methods and Quality of the Physical Learning Environment by Using the Fuzzy Delphi Method

Highlights

· Identification of Key Creativity Indicators , Eleven validated indicators were determined to influence architecture students’ creativity, with “representation culture,” “digital technologies,” and “design thinking” having the highest impact.

· Integration of Pedagogy and Physical Environment, Creativity in architectural education emerges from the interaction between creativity-based teaching methods and the quality of the physical learning environment.

· Application of the Fuzzy Delphi Method, The study employed a structured Fuzzy Delphi approach, engaging 15 experts through a 17-item questionnaire to reach consensus on critical indicators.

· Implications for Studio and Curriculum Design, Implementing these indicators can enhance studio environments, foster creative learning processes, and improve the quality of architectural outcomes.

Keywords

Architectural education

creative learning

creative-based pedagogy

final indicator model

physical environment

· Asefi, M., & Imani, E. (2018). EFFECTS OF ACTIVE STRATEGIC TEACHING MODEL (ASTM) IN CREATIVE AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS OF ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR. https://doi.org/10.26687/archnet-ijar.v12i2.1340

· Barbosa, L., & Godoy, R. (2024). Physical school space and the creative process in architecture: the student's perception in the pandemic Authors. Cadernos de Educação, Tecnologia e Sociedade. https://doi.org/10.14571/brajets.v17.n1.247-263

· HeidariAli, A., Hadi, M., & BozorgEhsan, B. (2019). Investigating the role of student's teaching method on promoting their creativity.

· Hsueh, S., & Huang, C. (2014). Using fuzzy multi-criteria assessment model for evaluating student’s core competencies—a view of cultural and creative design education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30, 276-282.

· Hsueh, S., Zhou, B., Chen, Y., & Yan, M. (2021). Supporting technology-enabled design education and practices by DFuzzy decision model: applications of cultural and creative product design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 2239 - 2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09681-7

· Jahreie, C. F., Arnseth, H. C., Krange, I., Smørdal, O., & Kluge, A. (2011). "Designing for play-based learning of scientific concepts: Digital tools for bridging school and science museum contexts. " Children, Youth and Environments, 21(2), 236-255.

· Kim, J. S. (2005). The effects of a constructivist teaching approach on student academic achievement, self-concept, and learning strategies. Asia pacific education review, 6(1), 7-19.

· Laal, M., & Laal, A. (2012). Challenges for Lifelong Learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1539–1544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.857

· Lucas, B. (2016). “A Five Dimensional Model of Creativity and its Assessment in Schools”. Applied Measurement in Education, 29:4, 278-290, DOI: 10.1080/08957347.2016.1209206.

· Mahmoud, N., Kamel, S., & Hamza, T. (2020). THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOLERANCE OF AMBIGUITY AND CREATIVITY IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STUDIO. Creativity Studies. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2020.9628

· Mahmoud, N., Kamel, S., & Hamza, T. (2023). THE CORRELATION BETWEEN ARCHITECTURE STUDENTS’ AMBIGUITY TOLERANCE AND THEIR CREATIVITY: NEGATIVE CAPABILITY INSIDE THE DESIGN STUDIO. Creativity Studies. https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2023.17461

· Meyer, A., & Fourie, I. (2018). Information behaviour of architecture students in creative design projects. Aslib J. Inf. Manag., 70, 414-433. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-02-2018-0030

· Nayak, D. K. (2007). A Study on Effect of Constructivist Pedagogy on Students’ Achievement in Mathematics at Elementary Level. National Institute of Open Schooling, MHRD, Noida.

· Nursanty, E., Hasan, R., & Htet, T. (2022). Problem-Based Learning and Mind Mapping: Boosting Creativity in Architecture Education. SARGA: Journal of Architecture and Urbanism. https://doi.org/10.56444/sarga.v16i1.1151

· Nussbaum, B. (2013). “Creative Intelligence: Harnessing the Power to Create, connect and Inspire”, New York: Harper Collins.

· Piñones, E., Jacob-Dazarola, R., Soto, M., León, J., Nikulin, C., Rojas, C., & Marin, T. (2025). Enhancing Creativity Through Material Choice in Architectural and Urban Design Model-Making. Buildings. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15030423

· Rahimianzarif, E., & Moradi, M. (2018). Designing Integrated Management Criteria of Creative Ideation Based on Fuzzy Delphi Analytical Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20, 877-900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-017-0370-6

· Runco, M. A. (2004). “Creativity". Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502

· Sabir, B. (2019). Effects of Restorative Environments on Creativity in Case of Architecture Education. EAAE Annual Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.51588/eaaeacp.65

Sanchez, E., Piau-Toffolon, C., Oubahssi, L., Serna, A., Marfisi-Schottman, I., Loup, G., & George, S. (2016). "Toward a play management system for play-based learning" In Adaptive and Adaptable Learning: 11th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL 2016, Lyon, France, September 13-16, 2016, Proceedings 11 (pp. 484-489). Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_47

· Sudha, B., & Premkumar, K. (2025). Influence of cognitive, affective-conative resources toward creativity in the realm of architecture ‘a latent variable model for indicators of creativity’. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 13, 194 - 220. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2025.2471970

· Weisberg, D.S., Zosh, J.M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R.M. (2013). Talking It Up: Play, Language Development, and the Role of Adult Support. American Journal of Play, 6, 39-54. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Talking-It-Up%3A-Play%2C-Language-Development%2C-and-the-Weisberg Zosh/e63bb0738a2036d6b1e862076b126e2d88ca048e

· Wu, H., Wu, H., Chen, I., & Chen, H. (2014). Exploring the critical influential factors of creativity for college students: A multiple criteria decision-making approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 11, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.09.004