Traditional education vs modern education. What is the impact of teaching techniques' evolution on students learning process?

The main objective of this article is to focus on the analysis of teaching techniques, ranging from the use of the blackboard and chalk in old traditional classes, using slides and overhead projectors in the eighties and use of presentation software in the nineties, to the video, electronic board and network resources nowadays. Furthermore, all the aforementioned, is viewed under the different mentalities in which the teacher conditions the student using the new teaching technique, improving soft skills but maybe leading either to encouragement or disinterest, and including the lack of educational knowledge consolidation at scientific, technology and specific levels. In the same way, we study the process of adaptation required for teachers, the differences in the processes of information transfer and education towards the student, and even the existence of teachers who are not any longer appealed by their work due which has become much simpler due to new technologies and the greater ease in the development of classes due to the criteria described on the new Grade Programs adopted by the European Higher Education Area. Moreover, it is also intended to understand the evolution of students’ profiles, from the eighties to present time, in order to understand certain attitudes, behaviours, accomplishments and acknowledgements acquired over the semesters within the degree Programs. As an Educational Innovation Group, another key question also arises. What will be the learning techniques in the future?. How these evolving matters will affect both positively and negatively on the mentality, attitude, behaviour, learning, achievement of goals and satisfaction levels of all elements involved in universities’ education? Clearly, this evolution from chalk to the electronic board, the three-dimensional view of our works and their sequence, greatly facilitates the understanding and adaptation later on to the business world, but does not answer to the unknowns regarding the knowledge and the full development of achievement’s indicators in basic skills of a degree. This is the underlying question which steers the roots of the presented research.

Comparison of NDVI fields obtained from different remote sensors

Satellite image data have become an important source of information for monitoring vegetation and mapping land cover at several scales. Beside this, the distribution and phenology of vegetation is largely associated with climate, terrain characteristics and human activity. Various vegetation indices have been developed for qualitative and quantitative assessment of vegetation using remote spectral measurements. In particular, sensors with spectral bands in the red (RED) and near-infrared (NIR) lend themselves well to vegetation monitoring and based on them [(NIR - RED) / (NIR + RED)] Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) has been widespread used. Given that the characteristics of spectral bands in RED and NIR vary distinctly from sensor to sensor, NDVI values based on data from different instruments will not be directly comparable. The spatial resolution also varies significantly between sensors, as well as within a given scene in the case of wide-angle and oblique sensors. As a result, NDVI values will vary according to combinations of the heterogeneity and scale of terrestrial surfaces and pixel footprint sizes. Therefore, the question arises as to the impact of differences in spectral and spatial resolutions on vegetation indices like the NDVI and their interpretation as a drought index. During 2012 three locations (at Salamanca, Granada and Córdoba) were selected and a periodic pasture monitoring and botanic composition were achieved. Daily precipitation, temperature and monthly soil water content were measurement as well as fresh and dry pasture weight. At the same time, remote sensing images were capture by DEIMOS-1 and MODIS of the chosen places. DEIMOS-1 is based on the concept Microsat-100 from Surrey. It is conceived for obtaining Earth images with a good enough resolution to study the terrestrial vegetation cover (20x20 m), although with a great range of visual field (600 km) in order to obtain those images with high temporal resolution and at a reduced cost. By contranst, MODIS images present a much lower spatial resolution (500x500 m). The aim of this study is to establish a comparison between two different sensors in their NDVI values at different spatial resolutions. Acknowledgements. This work was partially supported by ENESA under project P10 0220C-823. Funding provided by Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MICINN) through project no. MTM2009-14621 and i-MATH No. CSD2006-00032 is greatly appreciated.

Gestión intelectual de las prácticas comunicativas en arquitectura : S, M, L, XL, el gran evento = The intellectual management of communication practices in architecture : S, M, L, XL, the big event

La tesis doctoral se centra en la posibilidad de entender que la práctica de arquitectura puede encontrar en las prácticas comunicativas un apoyo instrumental, que sobrepasa cualquier simplificación clásica del uso de los medios como una mera aplicación superficial, post-producida o sencillamente promocional. A partir de esta premisa se exponen casos del último cuarto del siglo XX y se detecta que amenazas como el riesgo de la banalización, la posible saturación de la imagen pública o la previsible asociación incorrecta con otros individuos en presentaciones grupales o por temáticas, han podido influir en un crecimiento notable de la adquisición de control, por parte de los arquitectos, en sus oportunidades mediáticas. Esto es, como si la arquitectura hubiera empezado a superar y optimizar algo inevitable, que las fórmulas expositivas y las publicaciones, o más bien del exponer(se) y publicar(se), son herramientas disponibles para activar algún tipo de gestión intelectual de la comunicación e información circulante sobre si misma. Esta práctica de “autoedición” se analiza en un periodo concreto de la trayectoria de OMA -Office for Metropolitan Architecture-, estudio considerado pionero en el uso eficiente, oportunista y personalizado de los medios. Así, la segunda parte de la tesis se ocupa del análisis de su conocida monografía S,M,L,XL (1995), un volumen que contó con gran participación por parte de sus protagonistas durante la edición, y de cuyo proceso de producción apenas se había investigado. Esta publicación señaló un punto de inflexión en su género alterando todo formato y restricciones anteriores, y se ha convertido en un volumen emblemático para la disciplina que ninguna réplica posterior ha podido superar. Aquí se presenta a su vez como el desencadenante de la construcción de un “gran evento” que concluye en la transformación de la identidad de OMA en 10 años, paradójicamente entre el nacimiento de la Fundación Groszstadt y el arranque de la actividad de AMO, dos entidades paralelas clave anexas a OMA. Este planteamiento deviene de cómo la investigación desvela que S,M,L,XL es una pieza más, central pero no independiente, dentro de una suma de acciones e individuos, así como otras publicaciones, exposiciones, eventos y también artículos ensayados y proyectos, en particular Bigness, Generic City, Euralille y los concursos de 1989. Son significativos aspectos como la apertura a una autoría múltiple, encabezada por Rem Koolhaas y el diseñador gráfico Bruce Mau, acompañados en los agradecimientos de la editora Jennifer Sigler y cerca de una centena de nombres, cuyas aportaciones no necesariamente se basan en la construcción de fragmentos del libro. La supresión de ciertos límites permite superar también las tareas inicialmente relevantes en la edición de una publicación. Un objetivo general de la tesis es también la reflexión sobre relaciones anteriormente cuestionadas, como la establecida entre la arquitectura y los mercados o la economía. Tomando como punto de partida la idea de “design intelligence” sugerida por Michael Speaks (2001), se extrae de sus argumentos que lo esencial es el hallazgo de la singularidad o inteligencia propia de cada estudio de arquitectura o diseño. Asimismo se explora si en la construcción de ese tipo de fórmulas magistrales se alojaban también combinaciones de interés y productivas entre asuntos como la eficiencia y la creatividad, o la organización y las ideas. En esta dinámica de relaciones bidireccionales, y en ese presente de exceso de información, se fundamenta la propuesta de una equivalencia más evidenciada entre la “socialización” del trabajo del arquitecto, al compartirlo públicamente e introducir nuevas conversaciones, y la relación inversa a partir del trabajo sobre la “socialización” misma. Como si la consciencia sobre el uso de los medios pudiera ser efectivamente instrumental, y contribuir al desarrollo de la práctica de arquitectura, desde una perspectiva idealmente comprometida e intelectual. ABSTRACT The dissertation argues the possibility to understand that the practice of architecture can find an instrumental support in the practices of communication, overcoming any classical simplification of the use of media, generally reduced to superficial treatments or promotional efforts. Thus some cases of the last decades of the 20th century are presented. Some threats detected, such as the risk of triviality, the saturation of the public image or the foreseeable wrong association among individuals when they are introduced as part of thematic groups, might have encouraged a noticeable increase of command taken by architects when there is chance to intervene in a media environment. In other words, it can be argued that architecture has started to overcome and optimize the inevitable, the fact that exhibition formulas and publications, or simply the practice of (self)exhibition or (self)publication, are tools at our disposal for the activation of any kind of intellectual management of communication and circulating information about itself. This practice of “self-edition” is analyzed in a specific timeframe of OMA’s trajectory, an office that is considered as a ground-breaking actor in the efficient and opportunistic use of media. Then the second part of the thesis dissects their monograph S,M,L,XL (1995), a volume in which its main characters were deeply involved in terms of edition and design, a process barely analyzed up to now. This publication marked a turning point in its own genre, disrupting old formats and traditional restrictions. It became such an emblematic volume for the discipline that none of the following attempts of replica has ever been able to improve this precedent. Here, the book is also presented as the element that triggers the construction of a “big event” that concludes in the transformation of OMA identity in 10 years. Paradoxically, between the birth of the Groszstadt Foundation and the early steps of AMO, both two entities parallel and connected to OMA. This positions emerge from how the research unveils that S,M,L,XL is one more piece, a key one but not an unrelated element, within a sum of actions and individuals, as well as other publications, exhibitions, articles and projects, in particular Bigness, Generic City, Euralille and the competitions of 1989. Among the remarkable innovations of the monograph, there is an outstanding openness to a regime of multiple authorship, headed by Rem Koolhaas and the graphic designer Bruce Mau, who share the acknowledgements page with the editor, Jennifer Sigler, and almost 100 people, not necessarily responsible for specific fragments of the book. In this respect, the dissolution of certain limits made possible that the expected tasks in the edition of a publication could be trespassed. A general goal of the thesis is also to open a debate on typically questioned relations, particularly between architecture and markets or economy. Using the idea of “design intelligence”, outlined by Michael Speaks in 2001, the thesis pulls out its essence, basically the interest in detecting the singularity, or particular intelligence of every office of architecture and design. Then it explores if in the construction of this kind of ingenious formulas one could find interesting and useful combinations among issues like efficiency and creativity, or organization and ideas. This dynamic of bidirectional relations, rescued urgently at this present moment of excess of information, is based on the proposal for a more evident equivalence between the “socialization” of the work in architecture, anytime it is shared in public, and the opposite concept, the work on the proper act of “socialization” itself. As if a new awareness of the capacities of the use of media could turn it into an instrumental force, capable of contributing to the development of the practice of architecture, from an ideally committed and intelectual perspective.