Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Design Charrette Pedagogy in Flipped Classroom to
Enable Creative Exploration Outside Design Studio
Higher Education Campus Conference 2019
DR. SIU-KIT LAU | MS. NOOPUR JOSHI
Architecture Education Design Charrette | 2
Design
Studio
Module 1
Module 2
Module 3
Module 4
Module 6
Module 5 Domain
knowledge
Compartmentalized model of architecture education
Design Studio & Preparatory Modules Design Charrette | 3
GAP
Design
Studio
Module-1 Module-2 Module-3
Module-4 Module-5 Module-6
Knowledge derived in classrooms
Studio Module
● Analytical Understanding
● Creative Application
Non-Studio Modules
● Conceptual understanding
● Lower cognitive processes like
remembering & understanding
● No Creative exploration
Transdisciplinary Framework Design Charrette | 4
Design Studio
Module 2
Module 3
Module 1
Module 6
Module 5 Module 4
Preparatory Modules Design Charrette | 5
Current scenario
Declarative Knowledge
(88% of teaching time)
Future
Functioning Knowledge
Flipped Classroom Model Design Charrette | 6
Learning Activity
Functioning Knowledge
Lectures
Declarative Knowledge
Assignment
Functioning Knowledge
Current Scenario
Video Lectures
Declarative Knowledge
Proposed Scenario
FCR
Pillars of Flipped classroom Design Charrette | 7
1
Pedagogy
2
Technology
Source: Steelcase. (2015). Active Learning Spaces
http://www.steelcase.com/content/uploads/2015/01/ V5-SE-Insights-Guide-pricing-interactive.pdf
Flipped Classroom Model
3
Space
Environmental Systems Module Design Charrette | 8
Expanse of Topics
Heating &
ventilation
Plumbing &
Drainage
Electrical
Fire
Safety
Technical nature of topics
Large student-teacher ratioNew topics
Creative design
assignment
High student-teacher
ratio
Design
Charrette
Creative design
assignment
Limited time
High student-teacher
ratio
Design Charrette Design Charrette | 9
Design
charrette
Design Charrette Design Charrette | 10
Group 1
3-8 Students
Creative & Analytic
Encourages
BrainstormingTime-based
Collaborative
G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7
Evaluate
Design
Design Process Design Charrette | 11
Analyse
Synthesize
Design Critique Design Charrette | 12
Presentations
DiscussionsFeedback
Design CritEvaluation
Process
● Individually with tutor
1. Desk Crit
● Group crit amongst peers
2. Peer Crit
● Group crit amongst peers
& tutor
3. Group Crit
Types of Crit
Design charrette
Instruction Intended Learning
Outcome
Creativity
Design critique Cognitive ability
(evaluate)
Q1: What is the effects of design charrette on students’ creativity?
1
2
Research Questions Design Charrette | 13
Q2: What is the effect of design critique on students’ ability to evaluate designs?
Batch (treatment group)
140 students
Tutorial 1
35 students
Tutorial 2
35 students
Tutorial 3
35 students
Tutorial 4
35 students
Cohort 1
70 students
Cohort 2
70 students
Group 2
5 students
Group 1
5 students
Group 3
5 students
Group 4
5 students
Group 5
5 students
Group 6
5 students
Group 7
5 students
Student Grouping Design Charrette | 14
Sem
este
r
Semester Schedule Design Charrette | 15
Introduction
Heating & Ventilation
Plumbing & Drainage
Fire Safety
Electrical
Integration
Week 1
Week 2
Week 5
Week 7
Week 8
Week 6
Week 3
Week 4
Week 10
Week 11
Week 9
Cohort 1
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 2
Design Charrette
(50 min)
Design Critique
(50 min)
Case study findings
Brainstorm ideas
Presentation
Feedback
Evaluate
Discussion
Design solution
Design resolution
In Class Activity: Design Charrette & Critique Design Charrette | 16
In-c
lass A
ctivity (
1 h
our
40 m
in)
1. Creative Trait
a. Fluency
b. Flexibility
c. Originality
SSCM: Scientific
Measuring Creativity Design Charrette | 17
2. Creative Process
a. Imagination
b. Thinking/ Elaboration
3. Creative Product
a. Source
b. Distribution Network
c. Execution
Assessment Criteria (Tutor) 4 3 2 1
Creative trait
Fluency Number of ideas
FlexibilityNumber of categories of
relevant ideas (width)
Originality Rarity of idea
Fluency Flexibility Originality
Design Charrette Assessment Design Charrette | 18
Assessment Criteria (Peers) 4 3 2 1
Creative processThinking/ Elaboration Detail of relevant idea (depth)
Imagination/Visualisation Resolution of idea
Creative product Technical knowledge/ rigor
Source
Distribution
Execution
Thinking/ Elaboration Imagination/ Visualisation Product
Design Charrette Assessment Design Charrette | 19
Criteria Beginning (1) Developing (2) Accomplished (3) Exemplary (4)
System description The essay does not detail out the system type with overview diagrams,
system components explained as a
part of the whole, system area/
volume through comparative values.
The essay details out some of the
system type with overview diagrams,
system components explained as a
part of the whole, system area/
volume through comparative values.
The essay clearly details out most of
the system type with overview
diagrams, system components
explained as a part of the whole,
system area/ volume through
comparative values.
The essay precisely details out all of
the system type with overview
diagrams, system components
explained as a part of the whole,
system area/ volume through
comparative values.
Demonstrate system
integration using
model or schematic
drawings
The essay reflects a fair
understanding of systems with an
attempt to identify the system
integration, but is not clear.
The essay reflects an appropriate and
sound understanding of systems with
an attempt to identify the system
integration, but is not comprehensive.
The essay reflects a clear and precise
understanding of systems with
accurate identification and
comprehensive description of system
integration.
The essay reflects a deep and
nuanced understanding of systems
with highly accurate identification of
system integration that are effectively
investigated.
Evaluate systems in
context of building
program
The essay vaguely establishes a
relationship between the systems and
the building program.
The essay recognizes the relationship
between systems and the building
program, but the relationship is weak.
The essay correctly discusses the
systems in context of the building
program.
The essay meaningfully discusses the
systems in context of the building
program.
Evaluate systems in
context of building
size
The essay vaguely establishes a
relationship between the systems and
the building size.
The essay recognizes the relationship
between systems and the building
size, but establishes no thumb rule.
The essay correctly discusses the
systems in context of building size and
derives a thumb rule, but not for all
systems.
The essay meaningfully discusses the
systems in context of building size and
logically derives a thumb rule for all
systems.
Effectiveness of
argument and
evidence
The essay attempts at constructing an
argument, though there is a lack of
consistency. The evidence of
drawings, photographs or other
building examples is weak and limited.
The essay demonstrates an
arguments, though it may lack clarity
at times. There is a demonstrable use
of drawings, photographs and other
building examples to support the
argument most of times.
The essay has a clear line of
arguments that is sustained
throughout. The arguments are
supported with rational drawings,
photographs and other building
examples.
The essay provides an insightful line
of arguments that is consistently
persuasive. The arguments are well
supported with meaningful drawings,
photographs and other building
examples.
Measuring Evaluation Skills Design Charrette | 20