ACSA-EAAE Conference Presentation

Re conceptualizing the role of tutors in research-based pedagogy: the tutor(s) as the curriculum

The paper presents the efforts made to experiment with the pedagogical framework and the operational model of a postgraduate urban design studio based on the reconceptualization of the role of tutors. In the model examined here, the curriculum was devised as an open and evolving network of the tutors’ resources and affiliated researchers from within or outside the setting of the academy. This mosaic consisted of different individual research and design practices that are problem-focused and context-specific, communicated directly to students by the very people responsible for their conception and development. Learners were required to investigate the instrumentality of these practices according to their own personal pursuits; to make their own networks of connections, and were even encouraged to create their own personal schemata of design research. In fact, the second major shift of the rethink lay in recognizing learner autonomy and diversity, thus establishing a new operational framework for the two to prosper. An amalgam of interconnected learning spaces provided the conditions necessary for all these networks to co-exist and interact. The paper describes the different aspects of the tutors’ involvement and contributions in the design and implementation of this model, as they assumed a number of roles, but most importantly, as they became learners themselves.

AESOP Congress, 10-14.07.2018, Gothenburg, Sweden

IMG_5671

H. Chang: Stakeholder workshops as a pedagogy for experiential learning in collaborative planning education: An action research at the Department of Urban Planning, NCKU, Taiwan (photo credits: me)

This was perhaps one of the most interesting conferences I have ever attended. I followed the track of education since day 01 and I was amazed by the high levels of participation and engagement until the end. I met a lot of interesting people and I am very pleased to have worked with them, shared my thoughts with them and discussed with them on the future of urban planning education.

I was very excited to have been able to gain some relevance compared to what we have been doing, especially on transdisciplinary learning. The Round table on Friday was a great experience for me. I think that all of us present agreed on being advocates of collaborative practices, social inclusion and cultural empathy as basic prerequisites for co-creation in urban planning and planning education.

DSC07314

Round table brainstorming on the competencies of the future urban planners (photo credits: R. Rocco)

 

 

Making Space for Hope, AESOP 2018 Conference

AESOP 2018

See you next in AESOP 2018 Conference, Gothenburg, 10-14 July 2018!

TRACK 10 – EDUCATION_SESSION 8
Planning Education, Pedagogy and Didactics III

Creative Networked urban Design Studio: Transforming Elaionas through collaborative, reseacrh-based pedagogical approaches

Marda, N., Ioannou, O.

The paper describes a research and practice teaching methodology developed for an urban design studio at undergraduate and postgraduate level and how it transformed the teaching and learning experience. The area considered in both cases was Elaionas; a degraded, chaotic, post-industrial landscape near the Athens centre. The aim was to engage students in city planning creatively through the use of innovative tools of academic research and collaborative field work in order to interpret and manage urban complexity. A series of transdisciplinary analytic tools were employed for mapping such as tracking technologies and spatial analysis, design software and programming, while at the same time artists engaged students in the lived experience of the place. Live encounters were also realized with public sector representatives and other stakeholders.

Course content was set up as a network of researchers and resources where learning is rhizomatic and therefore collaborative and contextual. In this framework, students were required to choose the resources they were interested in pursuing further and to form their own strategies; they were asked to establish connections with the local community; they were also encouraged to share and compare their findings and their respective representations via blogging and social networks thus creating their own creative networked research community. Enhancing communication between students, experts and stakeholders raised student awareness and created an environment of possibilities. As a result, their plans for the regeneration of Elaionas demonstrated a positive attitude by involving local communities and other institutional agents toward the creation of sustainable urban environments.

 

Image available here

A10 cooperative’s meeting in Amsterdam

IMG_3837

Last week many of the A10 new European architecture correspondents met in Amsterdam. It was our first meeting since the cooperative’s official establishment and naturally there was a lot to talk about. Interestingly enough, despite our diverse backgrounds we’ve discovered that we have a lot in common and that we share a common perspective on where we want to go with this publication in the near future. It was a real pleasure for me to be part of this process and I look forward to materializing our intentions.

In the meantime, we’ve already completed the first phase of the EU Survey on the culture of architectural competitions in collaboration with Architectuur Lokaal and a first volume of the work in progress is now available. The conference held on the 28th and the 29th of September for the EU Survey was a great opportunity for us to discuss our findings and elaborate on many concepts related to the architectural competitions’ tradition and practices. Many thanks to Walter Menteth and Cillie Jansen for showing us fulkrum.eu. Special mention to Antigone Katsakou and her book entitled ‘The Competition Grid: Experimenting With and Within Architecture Competitions,’ (soon to be published by RIBA) as well as to Jonas Andersson and Magnus Ronn for their book ‘Architectural Competitions-Histories and Practice,’ available here. Special mention also goes to Angel Borrego Cubero and his film “The Competition” which was screened during day II.

Other new undertakings will soon be announced as well. I’ll keep you posted.

IMG_8171

Second Image belongs to Tarja Nurmi 

 

The culture of architectural competitions in Europe


Architectuur Lokaal along with A10 new european architecture cooperative have published their latest results of an EU Survey regarding architectural competitions in Europe. This issue constitutes their primary contribution to the discourse and is presented in this international conference in Amsterdam today. I am very happy to be part of this audience and share insights with the rest of the team. This volume is a valuable tool in understanding how the competition system works in Europe and I look forward to the next phase! 
The research is an ongoing project of Architectuur Lokaal and is programmed to be implemented over a period of four years with the aim to improve access to competitions, to analyze procedures, to establish a network of organizations and to collect case studies of good and bad practice. 


Images (c) Indira Van’t Klooster

3rd International Conference on ‘Changing Cities’_Paper: Mapping connections in online learning communities: architectural knowledge creation in the ‘connectivist’ paradigm

THEORY

The paper contributes to the understanding of social learning in architectural education through the examination of online collaborative practices and the connectivist paradigm in particular. Urban research conducted by NTUA educators and PhD students was used to create the body of content for a postgraduate course that ran for two consecutive years. The course format was hybrid; beside the traditional in-class meetings, an online platform was used to share content and exchange information between teachers and students. Students also were requested to establish their personal blogs. Their interactivity was monitored and evaluated in regard to their submitted projects and their overall performance. The way individual learners appropriated the information and the way they collaborated in a learning community with shared goals opens up to another form of knowledge creation and sharing between individuals.

Keywords: learning community; interactivity; analytics; data contextualization; connectivity; learning patterns.

OEB Mid-Summit_Donald Clark’s 10 recommendations

oebmidsummit

  1. HE must lower its costs and scale
  2. Develop different and digital HE model for developing world
  3. Stop talking past each other, talk to each other: Higher Ed has a widespread and deep anti-corporate culture
  4. Don’t lecture me!: ognitive psychology and educational research showed the redundancy of the lecture as a core pedagogic principle (…) we learn through the correction of errors, yet teaching methods fail to recognize this core cognitive fact
  5. Research is not a necessary condition for teaching – break the link: Research skills require systematic thinking, attention to detail, understanding of methods and analysis. Teaching skills require social skills, communication skills, the ability to hold an audience, keep to the right level, avoid cognitive overload, good pedagogic skills and the ability to deliver constructive feedback
  6. Build less. Balance out the capital budget with a substantial digital budget: It is perhaps time to consider, what John Daniel called, a ‘default to digital’ for some courses.
  7. Open up to outside, not just with technology but culturally: there’s some good and real change happening within HE but they tend to be, and remain, outliers; the core system is in stasis
  8. Embrace transformative technology: the complexity of the problems we face and the need for smart, technological solutions in education
  9. Strategic, costed initiatives with change management: recognizing the issues and taking a strategic approach to solutions
  10. Rebalance academic and vocational: pleas for more learning by doing and more apprenticeship

Full article available here/ Image available here

Design Studio Education in the Online Paradigm: Introducing Online Educational Tools and Practices to an Undergraduate Design Studio Course

educon-logo

Abstract— the architectural design studio, the prevailing form of design education, has resisted opening up to online educational tools and practices. Yet its affinities to the newest theories of learning such as connectivism are many. This paper describes an experimental configuration of multiple learning environments in diverse mediums for an undergraduate design studio at the School of Architecture of the National Technical University of Athens. The aim of the studio’s layout transformation has been to explore its physical boundaries and to create a collaborative milieu between peers that facilitated communication and thus, the exchange of information and knowledge.

Keywords—design studio; design research; collaborative design; online education; complexity theory; connectivism

10 characteristics of good design research

DESIGN RESEARCH

  1. Disruptive: viewing the world in alternative futures/new perspectives
  2. Useful: it must serve a defined purpose
  3. Messy: good design makes you think and this is inherently messy/ it requires untangling using approaches that do not oversimplify
  4. Political: it must clarify its stance on the world’s significant challenges
  5. Impactful: it must create an affect on, a change or a benefit
  6. Critical: it must challenge perspectives
  7. Enduring: it should provide us with a profound revolution in viewing the world not just hot topics
  8. Does not need qualification: the importance of design research lies in its rigor, relevance, quality and impact not in its particular types of design
  9. Thoughtful: it should address difficult issues
  10. Clear: it must be self-explanatory

 

References

Paul Rodgers, Joyce S.R. Yee, 2016. Design Research is Alive and Kicking… In Proceedings of DRS 2016: Design + Research + Society Future–Focused Thinking, (eds Peter Lloyd and Erik Bohemia), Published by the Design Research Society, pp.

Image available here

About the image:

The design research map is defined and described by two intersecting dimensions. One is defined by approach and the other is defined by mind-set. Approaches to design research have come from a research-led perspective (shown at the bottom of the map) and from a design-led perspective (shown at the top of the map). The research-led perspective has the longest history and has been driven by applied psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists and engineers. The design-led perspective, on the other hand, has come into view more recently.

There are two opposing mindsets evident in the practice of design research today. The left side of the map describes a culture characterized by an expert mind-set. Design researchers here are involved with designing FOR people. These design researchers consider themselves to be the experts and they see and refer to people as “subjects”, users”, “consumers”, etc. The right side of the map describes a culture characterized by a participatory mind-set. Design researchers on this side design WITH people. They see the people as the true experts in domains of experience such as living, learning, working, etc. Design researchers who have a participatory mind-set value people as co-creators in the design process. It is difficult for many people to move from the left to the right side of the map (or vice versa) as this shift entails a significant cultural change. (Richard Anderson, 2011)