Figure 1

Table 1 Reconstructing the rubric / Reconstruyendo la rúbrica / Errubrika berreraikitzen

Context

This dynamic is carried out just when we start the first exercise once its statement has been explained.

Procedure

p1

We take the rubric of a typical exercise.

p2

We delete the dividing lines, and we print it.

p3

We trim it with the guillotine, taking into account its content and also the difficulty that making smaller pieces entails, separating certain contents, etc.

p4

We divide the students into groups of 4 or 5 and give them the dissected rubric.

p5

Students reconstruct the rubric and take a photo of their reconstruction proposal.

p6

They autocorrect themselves based on the answer that can be found on the blog of the subject.

p7

We all discuss the different solutions and variables that have appeared.

p8

From the comments of the students, we discuss which ones may be admissible, and we decide upon a new evaluation rubric.

Materials

m1

Printed rubric.

m2

Guillotine or scissors.

m3

Students’ phones to take pictures of their solutions.

m4

Mobile device or computer to check the solution on the blog.

Space

e1

An arrangement of tables in groups to carry out group work.

e2

Tables’ arrangement that allows a subsequent dialogue without needing much movement, avoiding distractions.

Timing

5’

5 minutes to explain the activity.

25’

25 minutes for students to reconstruct the rubric.

20’

20 minutes for self-correction.

5’

5 minutes break.

50’

50 minutes to discuss different versions.

Objectives

obj1

Reading (something unusual nowadays).

obj2

Personally, and actively integrating the contents and, above all, the structure of the rubric.

obj3

Interpreting and evaluating their own solution.

obj4

Discussing and formulating alternative proposals to the teacher’s rubric.

obj5

Actively participating in the criteria by which they will be evaluated.

Discussion

As obj4 and obj5 point out, from the beginning of the course, this approach recreates a participatory and democratic design studio (hooks, 2021:30), to the point that a shared discussion can reconfigure the teacher’s rubric. This integrates Thomas A. Dutton’s deconstructive and critical approaches of the ‘hidden curriculum’ that can be seen in the work by Dutton (1987).

However, as it is possible to find hidden intentions in the curriculum, the students also bring their unconscious prejudices with them. And so, without entering into deeper discussions, but somehow echoing the theory of the primal horde pointed out by Freud (1913-14:143-148), it is common for students, from the first moment something is presented, to sound out the limits and weaknesses that would make the authority ‘fall’.

Anyone involved in education experiences this, especially if the students are offered an evaluation rubric. This is especially evident in the first few days of class, a key moment in which all parties are measuring their strengths. In fact, from this psychoanalytical approach, what students appreciate most is to have an authority in front of them who does not knuckle under their unconscious attempts to overthrow him/her.  

Therefore, the main point is to be able to maintain a dialogue capable of integrating and welcoming the conscious movement, as well as the unconscious motivations. In this way, power is no longer understood as much as a hierarchical structure to maintain or overthrow, but rather as the mutual projection of all unconscious states or hidden curricula. Thus, the work of the teacher will consist in exploring the ultimate motivations of both, the teachers themselves and the students, to achieve the maximum integration of everyone involved and all possible situations.

In this manner, we understand the design studio through the acceptance of the mutual transfer and countertransference that occurs between teacher and student. These are concepts that are close to the psychoanalytic field that we also find in Ochsner’s study (2000), a study that approximates the Design Studio to the therapist-patient relationship.

In this case, this deep interaction begins right from the first day of class with a dynamic in which the teacher dares to offer a rubric that is open to reconstruction. Thus, we avoid tedious situations of reading a technical document, such as a quasi-institutional text like the rubric. We go for play and curiosity, following the approaches offered in the book The Smile of Knowledge by Fernández Bravo (2019).

Figure 2

Figure 3

Table 2 Collaging the collage / Collageando el Collage / Collagea collageatzen

Context

When we start this dynamic, the students have just made the collage that is part of the ‘Aula-studio’ exercise defined in the previous article Besa (2019)

(However, for organizational reasons, in the 2019-2020 academic year, this dynamic was carried out at another time during the course)

Procedure

p1

We choose an exercise which is already finished, the collage.

p2

We scan the collages of the students.

p3

The teacher designs a presentation of the work in which he presents their collages in pairs in each slide. (See the attached image of one slide. The reader can also notice this in the photographs about the development of the dynamic, specifically in the images that the screens show).

p4

The teacher assigns comments to each collage in the slides. Comments based on an interpretative and creative subjectivity, never a relativistic subjectivity. The teacher designates each comment with a letter (A, B, Z, T, etc.) as the title of the comment.

p5

In the presentation the teacher does not define which collage each comment corresponds to. Students have to discover it.

p6

Using the title-letters, the students designate which comment each collage correspond to.  They write the letter on the backside of a post-it.

p7

We place the pair of post-it notes on the board in order, making them correspond to the position of each of the collages.

Las parejas de post-it se van colocando en la pizarra o en un panel en orden, haciéndolas corresponder con la posición de cada uno de los collages.

p8

After completing the exercise, we flip the post-it and discover that each group, thanks to the position of the letters, has created the title: “ZORIONAK GUZTIOI!” which means “CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL!” (Logically, it is the teacher who has previously rigged the order of the letters of the titles so that when solving the exercise, they remain in the order that forms said title)

p9

The evaluation criteria implicit in the comments and the presentation of this dynamic can be found later on the blog as part of the statement for the next collage.

Materials

m1

Presentation.

m2

Projector or screen.

m3

Post-it pads.

m4

Panel or whiteboard to stick the post-its.

Space

e1

Tables placed in groups for group work.

e2

A disposition that allows the view of the projection and the panel.

Timing

50’

50 minutes for the dynamic.

5’

5 minutes break.

30’

30 minutes to comment and assimilate previous steps.

20’

20 minutes for personal questions.

Objectives

ob1

Introducing oneself into a subjective, creative, interpretive work; distinguishing it from the most immediate and prevailing objectivist keys.

ob2

Differentiating creative subjectivity from relativistic subjectivity.

ob3

Appropriating the specific way of thinking about the subject (as practically all the groups are right in the result, the students understand that the criteria and contents of the subject are not as ambiguous as at first, they might seem).

ob4

Integrating and assuming criticism in an open and enriched way.

ob5

Distancing and freeing oneself from the emotional-affective filter, in this case, this dynamic provides a distance from the exercise itself that allows participants to listen and integrate different comments.

ob6

Obliquely assimilating concepts and questions that are not so easy to understand in a univocal or a direct way.

ob7

Assuming the evaluation criteria of the exercise in an experiential way.

Discussion

These dynamic designs an experience capable of transmitting a content that is difficult to assimilate in an explicit or exclusively rational way Ledewitz (1985).

To do this, the dynamic transforms one of the traditional processes of the design studio: teacher-student criticism, or, as Schön Schön (1984) calls it, teacher-student ‘reciprocal reflection-in-action’. In this case, this dymamic extends the teacher-student relation involving the rest of the class within it.

Thus, this activity aims to offer an alternative to the problems of the teacher-student relationship that are typical of design studio, some of them compiled in the publications by Frederickson (1990), Anthony  (1987) and Ciravoğlu  (2014):

“The studio becomes the main medium of architectural design education, and the conversation (mainly attributed as critique) between student and the tutor becomes the means of this education. Here the student is expected to learn by doing. However, the conversation, which may be in one of the following forms as one-on-one, desk or jury critique, is a very fragile one. According to Goldschmidt et al. (2010) many students often misinterpret a critique of their work as waged against them in person, which may result in anger, hurt feelings, or resistance. On the other hand, many students, especially in the early stages of their studies, are quite dependent on their teachers, and feel insecure until they receive from the teacher both approval and explicit guidance for the advancement of their projects. Even though the forms of critique are very determining, there is too limited knowledge on the pedagogy of these critics. Schön (1984) identified that learning in design studio begins with ill-defined problems (…)” Ciravoğlu (2014)

As the students introduce themselves into the game, they integrate and assume the criticism of their work, as well as criticism of the work of their classmates. Students are no longer directly face to face with the teacher's criticism. Thus, any possible resistance is diluted. Even the revision of the exercise is not immediate, but rather the students have to wait until the end, and thus, the dynamic provides necessary time to integrate and assume comments and criticism.

On the other hand, students receive the teacher’s words indirectly, through the choice made by their classmates, from a presentation in which their work is presented together with other works, and thus, the content is approved and assumed by all.

The end result, "ZORIONAK GUZTIOI!" (‘Congratulations to all!’ because everyone is right), shows us that the criticism and its contents are not so partial or biased. Coming from the subjectivity of the teacher and, therefore, being inevitably unique, these comments can be assumed, interpreted, and integrated by the whole group.

On the other hand, students are no longer subjugated to or dependent on the teacher’s comments, but rather students feel the need to interpret, elaborate and become active creators of the conceptual content that allows them to self-evaluate their own projects.

This last question, along with the rest, is enhanced with similar dynamics that are collected later in this article.

Table 3 Evaluating evaluation / Evaluación de la evaluación / Ebaluazioaren ebaluazioa

Mark only one answer in each case:

☐ If I have the second evaluation in June, an extra exam becomes compulsory, regardless of the evaluation of my course work.

☐ Doing the second evaluation in June is like bringing forward the summer sales: you can pass for less!

☐ I agree that the course evaluation criteria are fair, since they try to define and fine-tune a subject that, in the case of Design Studio, is not so easily objectifiable.

☐ I don’t like the evaluation criteria, since I have a habit of passing everything in June therefore doing much less than my colleagues during the course.

☐ I agree that I have a 14-day margin in case of any mishap that occurs means I will miss the deadline. I understand that if I always miss the deadline, the mishap is me.

☐ I always deliver my projects 2 minutes late, just when the deadline is over, testing the teacher’s patience and laughing at my classmates who have delivered on time.

☐ I agree that this test has consisted of a simple dynamic to replace the typical classic ‘spiel’ that explains the evaluation criteria at the beginning of the course.

☐ I don't like either modern dynamics or classic ‘spiels.

Context

This dynamic takes place several days after the evaluation criteria have been explained.

Procedure

p1

We prepare a Google form related to the evaluation criteria of the course.

p2

We send it to the students. They can fill in it is consulting the evaluation criteria of the course in the blog.

p3

We design this Google form with two answers per question. A correct answer and another bizarre answer, reflecting attitudes and situations that, unfortunately, students sometimes show, but they will never assume as their own attitudes.

p4

Using playfulness, the students get trapped, they have no other options than:

·        Choose the correct answer, committing themselves and acknowledging that they have read and understood the evaluation criteria. Also, they assume that they understand that other attitudes are not appropriate.

·        Not answer the form, so they cannot later claim that the evaluation criteria have not been made clear.

·        Only people who will have no problems passing can dare other alternatives, and thus, a student once even asked: "Can I perform an answer?"

Materials

m1

Google Forms application or another analogue platform.

m2

Mobile device or computer to answer the test and consult the blog.

Space

e1

Online space

e2

For the future: search for the most suitable platform, which could offer the best environment and design.

Timing

5’

5 minutes to explain the dynamic.

50’

50 minutes to do the test.

5’

5 minutes break.

30’

30 minutes to comment the sense and objectives of the test and clarify any doubts regarding the evaluation criteria.

Objectives

ob1

Dynamically explaining, searching for alternatives to the traditional class.

ob2

Integrating digital platforms and other means of communication subverting their immediate application (it is not simply a matter of transferring the traditional class to the online space, but rather it is about ‘taking advantage’ of its possibilities).

ob3

Using jokes and caricatures, we reflect on and bring out attitudes that at first sight we do not want to recognize, but that deep down are an active force.

ob4

Taking responsibility of our own decisions. Integrating one’s stance, reducing the exculpatory tendency that is projected outwards.

Discussion

With this dynamic, we again return to the issues raised about the ‘hidden curriculum’ (Dutton, 1987:16). As it has been pointed out in the first dynamic, education largely consists of working, more or less directly or indirectly, on what is happening in hidden strata or, more technically, unconscious layers.

With this test, we try to generate a dynamic in which unconscious movements are revealed indirectly, obliquely, through playfulness.

On the one hand, the first thing that this dynamic reveal and explains is the approach to the subject, ‘trying to define and fine-tune a subject that, in the case of Design Studio, is not so easily objectifiable’; leaving room for errors, accidents, repetitions, and recoveries, while leaving the responsibility to students to take on board the decisions taken.

In the same way that it does with the curriculum, the test also ‘uncovers’ attitudes of the students that are more or less unconscious. I can declare that some of the most absurd questions on the test are caricatures, just a ‘little’ exaggerated, of attitudes that I have had to face during all these years dedicated to education.

Figure 4

Table 4 Evaluating a project (sei zentzu) / Evaluando un proyecto (sei zentzu) / Sei zentzu proiektuaren ebaluazioa

Context

We perform this dynamic while the students are developing the exercise ‘Sei Zentzu’ defined in the previous article Besa (2019). In that exercise, students must overcome the difficulty of designing an action, pure action and not decoration or physical design, in a place that is also generic. This dynamic constitutes an evaluative stage once the first attempts to solve the exercise have been made.

Procedure

p1

The teacher classifies in groups the projects done by students. All standard errors are collected in each group. In each group there is at least one project that represents a standard error.

p2

Before the students enter the classroom, the teacher arranges projects on the tables in groups.

p3

Students come into the classroom and place themselves in a group that does not include their work. Students are thus randomly distributed in groups.

p4

Working in groups they evaluate each one of the projects using the evaluation criteria of the exercise, and they place a post-it on each project with a comment written by all of them.

p5

Once they have placed their comments, they also place the comments that the teacher had made previously, which he/she had hidden under the tables. They compare their comments with those of the teacher.

p6

Groups rotate through the classroom, and thus they see the comments that other classmates, as well as the teacher, have made about their work and about other projects.

p7

Once the objectives and the standard errors have been assimilated through this dynamic, the next day we give the students another opportunity and repeat the exercise.

Materials

m1

Projects by students

m2

Post-it pads.

m3

Tape.

Space

e1

Tables arranged in groups.

e2

Students’ groups should have the possibility to rotate. In our case, despite the limited space, we managed to achieve an arrangement that allowed a perimeter tour and rotation.

Timing

5’

5 minutes of indications.

35’

35 minutes for groups to make their comments.

10’

10 minutes to distribute teacher’s comments.

5’

5 minutes break.

30’

30 minutes to see the rest of the projects and comments.

20’

20 minutes for sharing.

Objectives

ob1

Evaluating and co-evaluating one’s own work through the work of others.

ob2

Distancing oneself and breaking any attachment to one’s own exercise to be able to recognize issues that in a direct or explicit way would not be recognized.

ob3

Entering a critical relationship in an open and plural way, avoiding comparisons typical of close rivalries.

ob4

Discerning and clarifying the subterfuges and the loopholes we cling to to avoid the creative trance which a totally new exercise leads us to.

ob5

Recognizing the meaning and the objectivity of an exercise and evaluation parameters that initially seemed totally ethereal and relative to us.

ob6

Assimilating concepts and questions that are not so easily understandable in an univocal or direct way.

ob7

Assuming the evaluation criteria of the exercise in an experiential way.

Discussion

The discussion that would fit here is analogous to the one compiled in the ‘collaging the collage’ dynamic.

However, this dynamic goes further: the students not only collect the evaluative content that the teacher has defined, but also in this case, they are the ones who develop critical content and later they compare it with the comments of the rest of the students and the teacher.

Thus, we offer an alternative that delves into the autonomy proposed by the ‘independent decision making’ line in the work by Bose et al. (2006). However, this dynamic intensifies certain variables such as play and interaction:

·        At the beginning, the group carries out the critique, still without knowing the teacher’s opinion, but taking into account the criteria established in the rubric (first critical milestone).

·        Then, groups have to correctly place the teacher's comments on each project (second critical milestone, which helps them to contrast the first step and prepares them for the next one).

·        The groups develop this entire critique, assessing the work of other colleagues before seeing the comments others have made about their own work (third critical milestone).

As noted in the ‘collaging the collage’ dynamic, this tour allows a distance from one’s own work, providing time and a process to access critical comments about the student’s own work that they would not have directly assumed in the first place.

But also, the milestones described above try to elevate and give direction to mere comments between students, comments that may lose their critical sense because they are among ‘equals’. A ‘group peer critique’ (Ibid. p.35) does not guarantee qualitative judgment just by constituting a group. Groups also deviate, either to mere condescending comments that do not provide meaningful creative content, or to the contrary, to destructive criticism generated by pure rivalry.

In this case, the teacher's intervention, and the dynamic itself try to rescue ‘group peer critique’ of these deviations. The teacher, through his/her comments and the design of this dynamic, sets an irrevocable direction. However, while maintaining all authorship and authority, these dynamic distances the teacher and also lowers his/her possible authoritarianism, in fact, his/her comments are exposed and contrasted with those of the students, also generating, by this interaction, a critical milestone for the teacher hooks (2021).

Figure 5

Table 5 Evaluating Koolhaas, ‘anteprojecting’ warming up / Evaluando a Koolhaas, calentando motores anteproyecting

Context

This dynamic is carried out before we develop the ‘Anteprojecting’ exercise defined in the previous article Besa (2019) In this exercise, the students are going to carry out several preliminary projects in different commercial premises, rotating a single programme around them: the programme of a luxury boutique. (The original title ‘Anteproyecting’ has been changed to ‘Anteprojecting’, more apropiate)

Procedure

p1

We put the tables together and the students’ computers on them, generating a perimeter tour, so we can move round.

p2

On each of the computers, on the students’ internet browser, we search for a Koolhaas project for PRADA firm. We offer these projects as inspiring examples for the ‘ante projecting’ exercise that we are going to develop next.

p3

In front of each computer, we place the correction rubric with which the ‘anteprojecting’ exercise will be corrected.

p4

Each group uses a different colour to mark comments on the rubric and corrects Koolhaas’ project using this rubric.

p5

We post the project with our comments and

WE MARK KOOLHAAS!

p6

We move around evaluating all the projects and reading the comments of the rest of the students.

Materials

m1

Computers connected to the internet.

m2

Post-it pads.

m3

Printed rubric.

m4

Markers or coloured pencils for each group to mark the rubric with different colours.

Space

e1

Tables arranged to form an island that allows a perimeter tour.

Timing

10’

10 minutes to place the computers and search the projects on the internet.

40’

40 minutes to comment on the projects.

5’

5 minutes break.

30’

30 minutes to write down the comments.

20’

20 minutes to share.

Objectives

ob1

Reading (something very unusual nowadays). Reading the rubric and information on the internet.

ob2

Critically interpreting the information of the internet, helping each other to reach a common understanding and a shared insight.

ob3

Assimilating the contents and objectives of the exercise by way of a game, avoiding unsuccessful theoretical classes.

ob4

Evaluating one of the greatest (Koolhaas) by means of our rubric, thus assimilating the rubric’s contents transversally. At the same time, by joking, we ‘lower’ one of the greatest from his pedestal.

ob5

Breaking our schemas and stereotypes, contrasting our prejudices with the radicality of Koolhaas' examples.

ob6

Assimilating previous examples in an active and participatory way, turning research into experience.

Discussion

As the interactional study model Salama (2015) and the ‘concept-test model’ Ledewit (1985) point out, the designer approaches a project not so much by an analysis/synthesis process, but rather in a ‘conjecture/analysis mode’. In the latter, the designer opts in the first instance for a conceptual scheme that is tested by an analysis and transformed by analogies into new ideas.

That is why the starting conceptual schemas and previous ideas that build our preconceptions and conjectures, fundamentally the information, is substantial when approaching a project Salama (2015),  Ledewitz (1985).

Therefore, before the project is carried out, this dynamic enriches the vision of the students, offering information while, at the same time, providing a tool for its assimilation (the rubric) Salama (2015).

Thus, we offer information to students not as a set of data that is not significant for the designer, but rather as information that is assimilated through the conceptual criteria included in the rubric. We do not offer the students examples as a catalog of results or standard solutions, neither mere prototype that are more or less stereotyped; we do not provide unqualified content, but rather the code of the rubric allows them to assimilate the information in a projective way. This offers a unique and creative alternative to the ‘knowledge and design’ approach by Hillier et al. (1972).

In this way, we direct and orient research towards certain conceptual objectives. We do not discard other orientations that are more open to the students’ proposals, orientations that promote personal interests of the students, thus guiding the research towards free and autonomous initiative (as is pointed out in the work by Fernando, 2018). However, we consider these dynamics more appropriate for higher courses once the students have acquired and assimilated the inescapable disciplinary concepts.

It is also necessary to point out that we do not reference Koolhaas in an imitative way, but rather we investigate his conceptual contributions. Thus, we move away from the ‘analogical model’ Salama (2015), Simmons (1978). In this way, as happened in the Aula-Studio exercise proposed in the previous article Besa (2019), we approach references not so much by copying or imitating them, but rather by conceptually understanding/interpreting them.

In addition, since we evaluate Koolhaas, we are daring to question one of the greatest. We dialogue with him through his accomplishments, rotating in a group. As a result, we overthrow the absolutist and individualistic positions that certain figures have reached Besa (2019), Besa (2021a). Through an interactive discussion we break the individualism, the excessive notoriety of the ‘solo artist’ Kellbaugh (2004).

Figure 6

Table 6 sprint-projecting

Context

This dynamic is developed in addition to the other dynamics of the 'Anteprojecting' exercise defined in the previous article Besa (2019)

In the first instance, we carried out the dynamic of the ‘anteprojecting’ exercise defined in the previous article:

·        We define an exercise with different commercial premises: named A, B, C, D, etc. Each with a problem to solve narrow premises, premises with more than one level, premises in the middle of a park, premises divided by a commercial passage, premises on the top floor of a tower, old premises with an entrance shared with the access to other houses, among other examples.

We developed several two-hour challenges.

·        On the first day, we raffle the different types of premises among the students, assigning one type to each student. They have to design a boutique.

·        The next day each student corrects the design of a partner. They make the correction that the teacher would make, marking the rubric and marking a copy of the work of the partner (from here on we continue online due to lockdown).

·        The following day the ‘challenge’ continues: each student reinterprets and redesigns the project that they corrected the day before.

·        The day after that, together with their partner, they make a group, and they solve a new project in new premises.

Before this last step, we performed the following dynamic:

Procedure

p1

Each student makes an A5 format booklet with several white sheets.

p2

We hold a draw; using Flippity we change the order of the class list.

p3

Each student begins to solve the project in one of the premises.

p4

After 5 minutes, each student passes a picture of his/her work by WhatsApp to the next student on the list (in the classroom it would be done by physically handing over the notebook).

p5

Each time we pass the notebook we reduce the time: first 5 minutes, then 2 minutes… finally 1 minute.

p6

Once the dynamic is over, each student collects all the images that were sent, puts them in a PDF and delivers the document to the teacher.

Materials

m1

Due to the coronavirus lockdown, the dynamics from now on were carried out online. This is why internet and mobile connection were necessary to send the documents quickly.

m2

White sheets to make an A5 booklet.

m3

Pencil, no rubber allowed.

Space

e1

Desk at student’s workplace.

e2

WhatsApp or email connection network between students.

e3

Skype connection to organize the dynamic, set times, etc.

Timing

10’

Ten minutes to explain and organize the dynamic.

40’

40 minutes to develop the dynamic in successive stages of increasingly shorter time.

5’

5 minutes break.

20’

Comment on the result and the objectives of the dynamic.

Objectives

ob1

Instrumentalizing representation as a methodological tool, speeding up the representative process to unsuspected extremes with the intention of reaching what would be unexpected and impossible solutions in a conventional logical-rational process.

ob2

Liberating freehand representation with the aim of being able to produce and represent projects that can be communicated in an agile way without weighing down the creative process.

ob3

Speeding up and stimulating freehand representation.

ob4

Broadening and expanding students’ own ideas and conceptions through the integration and transformation of ideas of other colleagues.

ob5

Creatively reappropriating digital and media tools, redirecting them towards unconventional uses (WhatsApp).

Discussion

This dynamic offers the opportunity to readjust and correct initial sketches and ideas, enriching the preconceptions of initial approaches by students in the first instance. Thus, we introduce students into the design method of multiple cycles: a concept proposal followed by its corresponding critical test that leads to a new concept Ledewitz (1985).

Thanks to these exchanges, with the reception of the ideas from different colleagues and due to the constant changes of premises, students obtain a critical distance from their own project and form their own projecting method. Thus, they assume an impartial or an indirect criticism that would be difficult to admit directly Ledewitz (1985).

Figure 7

Table 7 Tectonic materials / Materiales tectónicos / Material tektonikoak

Context

This dynamic is carried out before we start the exercise ‘Txiringito’ defined in the previous article Besa (2019). In this exercise, students must develop a Stand based on a specific construction material.

Procedure

p1

We list some construction materials: wood, brick, phenolic panel, aluminum composite panel, plastic, glass, etc.

p2

Each of the materials on the list is linked to each of the published issues of TECTÓNICA magazine.www.tectonica.es/p/pen.html

p3

We raffle materials among the students, assigning a material to each one.

p4

We provide a template with the basic questions to answer:

material, description, variables and types, historical development, landmark buildings, response to structural stability requirements, self-supporting stability, permeability, insulation, thermal inertia, condensation, typical details, typical pathologies.

p5

Extending the theoretical content provided by TECTÓNICA magazine, students will search for technical and commercial information on the internet.

P6

We proposed the exercise in line with the subject of construction. The rest of the subjects of the course also collaborated: history, photography, design culture, among others.

Materials

m1

Paper and pencil.

m2

TECTÓNICA magazine, each student with the issue they have been assigned.

m3

Mobile device to photograph or any scanning tool.

Space

e1

Online space created with Drive and Skype.

e2

This dynamic was carried out online. If we had physically worked in the classroom, we would have looked for a way to meet for critical and co-evaluative sessions.

Timing

7d

7 days until a preliminary deadline in which we evaluate the process by means of written corrections and common public criticisms via Skype.

7d

7 more days to complete the exercise.

14d

This dynamic provided time and served as a buffer to organize the online education system.

Objectives

ob1

Exploring the ins and outs of the construction discipline, getting used to diving into its dispersed, generic, and often contradictory information (especially in terms of terminology and classifying parameters).

ob2

Facing the big problem of the construction world: taking a generic solution from a catalogue and making it your own solution. Interpreting extensive theoretical information from specific and particular parameters.

ob3

Critically assuming the commercial information of certain products from defined technical criteria.

ob4

Differentiating physical construction concepts that due to confusion tend to overlap, all this through a practical application.

ob5

Synthesizing information visually and graphically.

ob6

Liberating freehand representation in order to be able to produce, and quickly represent, design sketches and construction details on site.

ob7

Defining the construction bases of the material that has been assigned, as prior information for carrying out the subsequent project.

Discussion

This dynamic is integrated into a broader exercise, called ‘Txiringito’, explained in the previous paper Besa (2019). It simulates a real commission: a construction material company requests to design a promotional stand in the free space outside the centre where we study.

Given the difficulty of simulating a commission and a real situation in the educational field, we make this attempt to bring students closer to the ‘case problem approach’ by Marmot and Symes (1985), in our particular situation, through a project in our school, which was also going to be completed with an Erasmus exchange with a school (Alpha College) in the Netherlands. The exchange was frustrated by the lockdown.

However, in this specific dynamic, the approach to real practice is carried out by leading students to the commercial world of construction and its disparity of information. A very real and difficult situation in construction.

We tried other approaches with a fundamentally social content in other courses, close to the ‘case problem approach’ mentioned here. We approached the reality of the elderly (exercise ‘Ayunta-chunta’ described in the previous paper, ‘#eindakoa#’ (Besa (2019), and ‘Abue-linking’ exercise carried out in the 2018-2019 academic year in collaboration with Beti Gizartean Foundation).

Figure 8

Table 8 www.2020txiringitocritic.wordpress.com

Context

This dynamic is carried out during the exercise ‘Txiringito’ defined in the previous article Besa (2019). In this exercise, students must develop a Stand based on a specific construction material.

Procedure

p1

The teacher creates a blog using WordPress.

An extra blog produced to deepen the online learning we have been forced into by the COVID-19 lockdown.

p2

Categories are defined according to language (Basque or Spanish).

p3

Teacher creates posts:

·        images of students’ works

·        images and videos of other projects

·        open comments that need to be completed

·        open controversial issues

p4

Students have to comment on the posts made by the teacher and also any comments made by other classmates.

p5

The teacher also participates by commenting and promoting discussion and dialogue.

Materials

m1

Blog created on WordPress.

m2

Drive folder where the students upload their work.

Space

e1

Online learning space created on the web using a blog.

Timing

1w

1 week, the professor revises the student’s work, he/she posts this work on the blog with the corresponding comments.

=

During the same week, students receive individual critiques; these critiques become group critiques on the blog.

2w

The blog continues active during the following weeks, during a week of vacation and the weeks after that. It can be accessed by the students, where they can get some criteria if they are stuck in their project and need to move forward.

1m

Subsequently, participation is again encouraged during the following month.

Objectives

ob1

Evaluating and co-evaluating one’s own work, in this case on the web.

ob2

Obtaining criteria in the discipline’s issues, a criterion that cannot be achieved without common and exchanged critiques.

ob3

Developing basic autonomy when making design decisions.

ob4

Breaking the dependency on the critique of the teacher, on the exclusive approval of the teacher.

Discussion

This activity aims to offer an alternative to the problems of teacher-student criticism typical of the design studio, problems already mentioned in a previous dynamic, listed in the work by Ciravoğlu (2014).

It should be noted that the blog changed throughout the course. The first posts were long, waiting for the comments of the students. Later, this question was improved, making shorter posts and participating after in the students’ comments.

Thus, the blog evolved, instead of presenting the entire content first while waiting for the subsequent discussion, it started to clarify the content through participation in the discussion.

In reality, this dynamic is not so different from previous dynamics and basically it is the dynamic of so many blogs that already exist. We do not intend to downplay it, but beyond the originality with respect to the previous proposals, we show here this dynamic to point out the process of disappropriation that every teacher must go through. Ellsworth (2005). 

This is a very important question, as it is the process that every teacher must follow in all dynamics. Being a teacher involves a big effort of disappropiation. In essence, any dynamic should basically ‘make room’ for the initiative and the will of the students to emerge. Teaching, then, is not “knowing how to teach”, but rather, “learning to teach”. Teaching to learn by “listening to the learner”, as the title of the work by Bravo (2019) points out.

It is also important to remember that an online dynamic never replaces a face-to-face dynamic. At least in this technique, participation is not simultaneous, and comments are answered with delay, losing direct spontaneity and immediate interaction. In other techniques and applications tested during the Covid-19 lockdown we have achieved greater fluidity, although it is easily verified that they never replace actually being present in the classroom.

Figure 9

Table 9 Tear out / Rasgar, arrancar / Urratu

Context

This dynamic is already mentioned in the previous article Besa (2019), within the ‘Aula-Studio’ teaching unit (pp. 35-37). The exercise comes from the ‘Ideas Course’ tutored by Amanda Hopkins and Tony Clelford in July 2010 at Central Saint Martins.

Procedure

p1

First of all, the teacher explains the dynamic, demonstrating the process by himself/herself, then the exercise begins:

p2

The teacher asks a question, the students have to answer using the dynamic.

How did you feel during lockdown?

What positive attitude have you found out about yourself that you did not know about before this period?

p3

In a scant minute, students flip through the magazine and tear out the pages containing images that suggest something to them in relation to the question asked. Fast, unconscious, compulsive movements, with hardly any thought, while the teacher urges them not to stop or not to reflect.

p4

Afterwards, in another minute, students fold (if they want) the pages, selecting the parts they are interested in, and spread them out over a large space that has been made available on their desk. Again, compulsive movements.

p5

With the mobile device, each student takes pictures of his/her display of images and uploads them to Drive.

p6

Once the entire class has performed this procedure, we view and interpret the assignments one by one.

p7

First, around a single work, anyone other than the author interprets what they see. Afterwards, the teacher and, later, the author offer their interpretation.

p8

The instructions and the statement of the exercise can be found on the blog, in this case once the exercise has been completed.

Materials

m1

A pile of magazines full of images.

m2

Mobile device to take pictures.

m3

In the case of not having magazines, any material that is available at home can be used.

Space

e1

It is important to free up the space to be able to expand on the arrangement of the images. No spatial limit should further confine our freedom!

e2

Space to comment on images, physically around the table, or webspace due to lockdown. (The photographs include the Web version and the on-site version performed in the 2020-2021 academic year)

Timing

5’

5 minutes to explain the dynamic.

1’

1 minute for a compulsive and agile tearing out of images from magazines.

1’

1 minute to make an arrangement or display of the chosen images.

10’

10 minutes to comment on each selected display.

20’

The dynamic is repeated once or twice.

15’

Reading the statement and commenting on it (in this case the statement is delivered at the end, never at the start so as not to condition the exercise).

Objectives

ob1

Quick and unconscious movement to enhance the right side of the brain.

ob2

Unconsciously associating or suggesting, but also interpreting the results.

ob3

Getting into creative interpretive subjectivity, different from relativistic opinion.

ob4

Exploring the intrinsic chiasmus type relationship between subject and object (Merleau-Ponty, 1964) present in all artistic activities (subject/object, symbolic/formal, etc.) (This objective was already in the paper #eindakoa#).

ob5

Integrating a useful technique for moments of stagnation when it is necessary to encourage intuition and inspiration.

Discussion

This exercise seeks to offer students a freedom that is typical of creative self-expression. This is an educational trend developed in the sixties which echoes approaches of the preliminary course at bauhaus by itten Vega (2019), and even previous ones, of Fröebel’s or Pestalozzi’s education Vega (2019).

However, while the exercise enhances unconscious expression and projection, it also aims to introduce students to interpretive work. It is not only about projecting or expressing, of course it is necessary to allow ideas to flow and to connect with unconscious strata, but also, it is important to be able to interpret the result, conceptualize it, decipher the keys that allow us to advance and glimpse the next step.

In this sense, as we value interpretation as the genuine thought of the project studio, we share Gallagher’s hermeneutical thought (1992, collected in Philippou (2001).

“Based on the two premises of Gallagher’s exploration of the connection between education and interpretation, that ‘understanding is always interpretational’ and that ‘learning always involves interpretational’ (Gallagher 1992), I propose a conception of the design studio as the site of active interpretation, and the site where a synthesis of a multiplicity of interpretations bearing on architecture takes place. A hermeneutical approach to the learning activity in the design studio is, necessarily, based on a conception of the architectural design process itself as an interpretation process. (…)

‘An essential aspect of all educational experience (…) involves venturing into the unknown’ (Gallagher 1992). At the same time, however, ‘a large part of the art of thought, and small enough so that, in addition to the confusion naturally attending the novel elements, there shall be luminous spots from which helpful suggestions may spring’ (John Dewey).”

Figure 10

Table 10: Alter-theory

Context

This exercise was developed in October 2020, once the article had been sent to the magazine of the Spanish version of the paper. This exercise deserves to be included in the paper since it introduces an alternative innovation to online teaching, and also because it complements the previous online exercises.

This dynamic was carried out during the exercise ‘Krisi dwelling’ defined in the previous article (‘#eindakoa#’, Besa, 2019:37-38). In this exercise, students must graphically analyze mythical houses of modernity through conceptual drawings without being able to express anything through writing.

Procedure

p1

Until now, the teacher used to explain the book ‘Commentary on Drawings by 20 Current Architects’ Cortés and Moneo (1976). This theory accompanied one of the didactic units of the course following the traditional class model.

p2

Given the coronavirus situation, instead of directly transferring the traditional master class to the online system, we we opte for an alternative: alter-theory.

p3

We form groups, we assign each group one of the architects that the teacher used to explain: Le Corbusier, Wright, Mies, Kahn, etc.

p4

We give out the material that the teacher used until now. Both the theoretical support and the slide show.

p5

Each group makes a video, maximum 6 minutes, explaining one of the architects (exceptionally they can extend it to 10 minutes if the video does not repeat itself).

p6

We upload all the videos to a shared folder and students watch all the videos.

p7

Once students watch all the videos, they fill in a shared and editable Excel table called ‘alter-theory’. In this Excel table we find the following questions:

p8

The first question in the table (see image):

"What would Le Corbusier think of Wright?"

"What would Wright think of Le Corbusier?" Etc.

That is to say, each group takes on the personality of its architect and makes him comment on the architecture and drawings of the architect of other groups.

p9

The second question:

“How does each architect contradict what he learned in the previous didactic unit?”

Note: In the previous didactic unit we taught a very precise and very disciplinary way of delineating. In this didactic unit 'we unlearn what we have learned' and we discover that drawing and graphic expression are tools that each architect recreates according to his/her communicative intention and interests (see: #eindakoa#, Besa, 2019:37-38).

p10

In the same online Excel table, each group makes an assessment of the oral presentation of the rest of the groups.

To do this, we give the students a list of evaluation criteria for oral presentations.

P11

The teacher makes his/her own evaluations, but places them out of order; students have to discover which group each teacher’s comment corresponds to.

Materials

m1

Computer, internet connection.

m2

The book: ‘Commentary on Drawings by 20 Current Architects’ Cortés and Moneo (1976).

m3

App or software for making and editing videos.

Space

e1

Desk at students’ workplace.

e2

Shared folder on Drive.

e3

Shared editable Excel document.

Timing

10’

Ten minutes to explain and organize the dynamic. We explain it using an online video.

2h

2 hours for reading the theoretical material and understanding the projects.

2h

2 hours for the preparation of the oral presentation and the making of the video.

3h

3 hours to see the videos of the rest of the groups and comment on them in the Excel table.

Objectives

ob1

Transferring the theory to an online space in a creative way. Encouraging the creation of another/alternative theory, alter-theory.

ob2

Recreating theory in a personalized, active, and involved way.

ob3

Bringing the theory back to life, leading the students to even take on the role of the ‘big’ giants that we explained in this theory.

ob4

Relating and linking the characters that until now have been shown to us as free-standing heroes in representations that distort their human figures. That is why it is a theory of ‘the other’, of ‘the alter’, a theory of otherness, alter-theory.

ob5

Integrating the evaluation criteria in an experiential way, seeing errors similar to mine in ‘the others’ (alter-theory) and allowing ‘the others’ to make me see mine.

ob6

Participating in a cross evaluation in which even the teacher's evaluations are exposed to criticism.

Discussion

 I teach in two groups, in which:

Group B: total failure.

Group A: relatively well resolved, although we can observe some of the same problems as Group B. (Group B had the handicap of being fewer, therefore there was more work. In addition, in their case, they had to translate all the material into Basque).

With the implementation of this dynamic, in the event that the students manage to minimally express the concepts related to the drawing of ‘the great’ architects, we can see how innumerable interactions and fruitful interpretations arise from the questions asked in the table. On the one hand, the students take on the role of the architects deducing and recreating the opinion that they would offer each other about their drawings. On the other hand, the perception that the students capture with respect to the drawings of 'the greats' in relation to what they previously learned in the previous didactic unit is tremendously interesting.

Actually, the dynamic worked in both groups. Even in the crudest failure, it also worked. In fact, when the teacher saw the videos, he immediately foresaw the failure, yet he still went ahead and let the students crash.

What interest could we have in this failure?

·        Suffering in my own flesh how badly I sometimes communicate, having to fill in a table based on the information that was poorly communicated by other colleagues.

Suffering in my own flesh ‘the others’ to find out who I am. Alter-theory.

Using cross dynamics in which I simply evaluate colleagues is not enough, they tend to lead us to soft generic judgments because we all avoid conflict in one way or another. In this dynamic, we are all compromised because if the partner has not done his/her job correctly I cannot continue with mine.

·        Loss of information.

Some students did not heed the teacher’s instructions and did not carry out this task in pursuit of the established objectives.

Some students made their video from other material, different from the one prescribed in the exercise. This material did not even refer to the architects’ drawings, nor did it answer the questions that students had to fill in on the table.

Although the instructions were provided in a short video that the students could watch over and over again, and despite the fact that all the material was presented clearly in a folder, the basic instructions of the teacher were disregarded.

Furthermore, when we have to transmit the information ourselves, we lose content, as the failure of the exercise shows.

In other words, the failure of this dynamic makes us aware of the emptiness we are doomed to if we do not assume autonomy and basic responsibility.

·        We note the difficulty of some texts like these. We do not access the basic depth, nor do we have the basic culture or basic knowledge to understand them.

We are facing a vicious circle, because in order to understand this type of text it is necessary to read them more, but to be able to read them with some interest it is necessary to understand them.

In other words, failure leads us to better appreciate the explanations of those who can introduce us to understandings that we cannot access by ourselves. Failure leads us to appreciate something that until now we had taken for granted.

Thus, surely this dynamic does not reach the depths of someone like Lévinas, who (in his work Totalité et infinite, 1961) attempts to open sameness to radical otherness (to radical difference), however, it is a dynamic that has made us break ourselves and be aware of how we became very accustomed to the ‘same’ without giving it the value that corresponds to it.

But precisely, if this game calls into question how little we take advantage of a traditional theoretical class, its failure also reveals the loss of information and rigor that occurs in many alternative dynamics. This failure has led the students to request a repetition of the exercise to collect the information that had been lost. Something completely new that we have to fully appreciate.

The student’s performance in the following exercise improved substantially.