Engaging with site-specific design through experiential learning and case-based learning

Andrea Moneta

The exposition presents findings and outputs from a trans-disciplinary research project involving students and tutors of level 5 BA Architecture and Theatre design courses of NTU. The process of reading, understanding and interpreting the inner character and performative attributes of architecture, and in-depth exploration and expression of spatial practice, are essential aspects for any design intervention on existing buildings for site-specific performance, but they are not enough used for architectural design. The originality of the action research lies in its trans-disciplinary approach and methodology derived from theatre and performance design, aimed at helping Architecture students to engage with the character of architectural spaces as a propaedeutic step of their design. The final goal was not just the resolution of a specific didactic need, but also the realisation of a resource for educators and practitioners, so to fill a gap in the literature of site-specific design methodology. The academic literature regarding site-specific performance, in fact, is more oriented in depicting its historical background, describing past and current practice, than summoning up its methodologies and applications. For this research Moneta designed and planned a series of multidisciplinary learning activities (perception lab, mapping, dramaturgy of the place) using a constructivist approach, within a collaborative design project with level 5 BA Architecture and Theatre design students, involving the exploration of an historical building in Worksop (UK). The research utilised a combination of Active Learning approach, based on Kolb's Experiential Learning and Case-based learning (CBL); a final questionnaire measured the impact of the research: 87.4% of students agreed that this new methodology helped them to design for site-specific places. Moneta summoned the research in a resource for colleagues in the form of a Poster that explained its methodology, identifying nodal points and learning activities to improve design for site-specific in BA level design courses. The research was peer-reviewed as part of PGCAP final assessment, and the Poster was exhibited at TILT showcase 2019.

Results

I used the data collected with the questionnaire to test if the project improved students’ engagement with the character of architectural spaces in response to the learning activities that I designed and planned. I used a colour coding for the charts (green/dark green: agree/strongly agree and orange/red: disagree/strongly disagree) so to visually catch the results and identify positives and negatives.

Section 1 – Perception Lab and Mapping

All questions received a very positive feedback, ‘disagree’ answers never scored more than 12.5%.

In Q1, 75% of students had a clear understanding before the beginning of the collaboration;

The use of the Map and its features received a quite positive feedback; when summoning Agree and Strongly Agree answers, they scored between 87.4% and 62.5%.

The last two key questions ‘The Map, as a resource, helped me to engage with the character of the place’ and ‘The Perception lab and Map improved my understanding and interpretation of a given place’, evidenced a very positive result of respectively 71.7% and 75%; only a 12.5% and 2.4% disagree with it.

Section 2 – Session and Workshop

Q8 ‘It was clear to me what I was supposed to learn in the lecture and workshop’ scored 62.5% (agree) plus 18.5% (strongly agree); students engagement was evidenced by Q10 ‘The learning activities were engaging and relevant to the workshop’ (agree: 68.7%, strongly agree: 12.5%); organisation was evidenced in Q11 (strongly agree: 31.2%, agree: 50%); the last two questions were relevant to measure the connection between the on-site exploration and the in-class reflection: Q12 ‘I had the chance to apply in the workshop, what I discovered and annotated on the Map during the Perception Lab’ (agree: 62.5%, strongly agree:12.5%); Q13 ‘The final team presentation improved my understanding about the output of the workshop’ (agree: 75%).

Section 3 – Overall outcome

I designed the last three questions to measure the impact of the project based on my research question aligning with the learning outcomes. The results confirmed that the project has been quite successful, even if carried over in a short amount of time. Q14 ‘This methodology encouraged me to rethink my understanding and approach to architectural spaces’ scored 56.2% (agree) and 6.2% (strongly agree), only 12.5% of students answered with a ‘disagree’. Q15 ‘After this experience I’m feeling more confident to interpret architecture’ was focused on the students’ specific curriculum and received a total score of 62.5% (agree + strongly agree) and 0% disagree. The most solid positive result was scored for Q16 ‘This methodology will help me to design for site-specific places’ with an overwhelming 81.2% (agree) and 6.2% (strongly agree).

Analysis of data confirmed the importance of integrating own professional and scholar practice with appropriate and effective learning theories to develop structured multidisciplinary methodologies that could be applied in different contexts. Experiential learning has a key role in the development of effective learning activities that are now extensively used in all disciplines of Higher Education, in UK and worldwide.

The fruitful collaboration with BA (Hons) Architecture confirmed the importance of cross teaching and collaborations between courses, to build bridges across disciplines, methodologies and curriculum, enhancing the student’s experience. This approach follows the School of Art and Design’s Future Vision aimed to facilitate interdisciplinary opportunities for students to collaborate across courses through cross-school projects and collaborative working opportunities.

Furthermore, the project had an impact not just on my practice, but also on the practice of colleagues of BA Architecture, that had the chance to take part to the collaborative project as facilitators; from their verbal feedback, I could appreciate their enthusiasm and interest in the methodology, and the will to repeat and develop this experience in the future.

This makes me confident that the results of the research, organised as a resource for colleagues, could be applied in other different HE contexts within and/or outside of NTU; as an example, this research could be used by theatre designers and architects in heritage contexts as a tool to dig into the deep relationship which exists between people and historical sites.

Tip

Tip