Controversy between curriculum design and curriculum development of online "highly specialized" education in the field of construction

Nowadays, on a global level, the Higher Education System has a complex and broad horizon of curricular tools to use in the teaching and learning process. In addition to these new educational instruments, full of possibilities, we face specific socio-economic conditions that affect in a significantly way the Curriculum Development in certain knowledge areas (areas traditionally built on a methodology based on a physical presence of students in the classroom). Some areas such as Restoration, Rehabilitation or Construction Pathologies, and the construction sector in general, require very defined and particular knowledge that only a small number of experts claim as specialized training. All these aspects condition the teaching methodology performed in a physical classroom at a university campus (the only option used until recent years) and made us consider the integration of online teaching in these areas too. The present work shows the teaching methodology used for the development of two online courses, where we offer distance learning for "highly specialized" formation in the Edification area (an area where traditionally there was only classroom training). At the beginning, both courses were designed by classroom training, but got a really small number of applications due to the specialized topic proposed. Later, we proposed a "Curriculum Redesign" of the contents, offering an online modality, which implied a significant demand both within and outside the university area. A notable feature of this educational experience is the great spectrum opened for attendees of both courses in the online version. This situation improved significantly the "Curriculum Development" for the student and implied an interesting new proposal on the offered contents and materials (what would have been really difficult to get in a face to face classroom). In conclusion, the absence of certain types of specialized contents in the academic university curricula makes essential to raise new methodologies to save the gap in this area through additional training courses as those analyzed in this paper. Thus, our experience opens a debate on the appropriateness of implementing online training in relation to the face to face training in constructive content subjects and, especially, presents a new scheme, not without controversy, for the curriculum design.

Technology Language and Frankenstein Strategy

Teaching architecture is experiencing a moment of opportunity. New methods, like constructivist pedagogy, based on complexity and integration are yet to be explored. In this context of opportunity teaching architecture has a duty to integrate complexity in their curriculum. Teaching methods should also assume inherent indeterminacy and contingency of all complex process. If we accept this condition as part of any teaching method, the notion of truth or falsehood it becomes irrelevant. In this regard it could focus on teaching to contingency of language. Traditionally, technology is defined as the language of science. If we assume contingency as one of the characteristics of language, we could say that technology is also contingent. Therefore we could focus technology teaching to redefine its own vocabulary. So, redefining technological vocabulary could be an area of opportunity for education in architecture. The student could redefine their own tools, technology, to later innovate with them. First redefine the vocabulary, the technology, and then construct the new language, the technique. In the case of Building Technology subjects, it should also incorporate a more holistic approach for enhancing interdisciplinary transfer. Technical transfer, either from nature or other technologies to the field of architecture, is considered as a field of great educational possibilities. Evenmore, student get much broader technical approach that transgresses the boundaries of architectural discipline.