First year design "Visualisation II": The hybridisation of analogue and digital tools

This paper discusses first year students’ responses and outcomes to the integration of digital technologies in their second semester foundational visualisation class; ‘Visualisation II’. As the second class in the Visualisation series, previous analogue knowledge taught in ‘Visualisation I’ is compounded with new digital technologies establishing the introduction to a myriad of hybrid visualisation tools and techniques for design exploration and design artefact. This research examines the differentiation between analogue and digital design, common precedents of the two, and reflects upon the environment and class structure with the learning experiences and confidence of surveyed participants.

Shut up and write! Facilitating informal learning in doctoral candidature

Doctoral candidates spend at least 2/3 of their degree outside of structured classroom instruction; most of their learning and writing takes place in their own time. Providing research degree candidates with writing help during their degree study is difficult. Candidates come into their degree with widely varying needs and levels of experience. Course work might seem to offer a way to create parity, but, according to the Australian Qualification Framework, mandated coursework can only occupy 1⁄3 of the degree

An interactive and adaptive building layer : strategies for allowing people to become advanced building-users

This paper reports outcomes of a pilot study to develop a conceptual framework to allow people to retrofit a building-layer to gain better control of their own built- environments. The study was initiated by the realisation that discussions surrounding the improvement of building performances tend to be about top-down technological solutions rather than to help and encourage bottom-up involvement of building-users. While users are the ultimate beneficiaries and their feedback is always appreciated, their direct involvements in managing buildings would often be regarded as obstruction or distraction. This is largely because casual interventions by uninformed building-users tend to disrupt the system. Some earlier researches showed however that direct and active participation of users could improve the building performance if appropriate training and/or systems were introduced. We also speculate this in long run would also make the built environment more sustainable. With this in mind, we looked for opportunities to retrofit our own office with an interactive layer to study how we could introduce ad-hoc systems for building-users. The aim of this paper is to describe our vision and initial attempts followed by discussion.

Dichotomy in the design studio 2.0 : adapting to new blended learning environments

In a study aimed at better understanding how students adapt to new blended studio learning environments, all undergraduate and masters of architecture students at a large school of architecture in Australia, learned a semester of architectural design in newly renovated, technology embedded, design studio environments. The renovations addressed the lessons learned from a 2011 pilot study of a second year architectural design studio learned in a high technology embedded prototype digital laboratory. The new design studios were purpose designed for the architecture students and adapted Student-Centred Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs design principles. At the end of the semester, the students completed a questionnaire about their experiences of learning in the new design studio environments. Using a dual method qualitative approach, the questionnaire data were coded and extrapolated using both thematic analysis and grounded theory methodology. The results from these two approaches were compared, contrasted and finally merged, to reveal five distinct emerging themes, which were instrumental in offering resistance or influencing adaptation to, the new blended studio learning environments. This paper reports on the study, discusses the major contributors to resistance and adaptation, and proposes points for consideration when renovating or designing new blended studio learning environments. This research extends the 2011 pilot study by the same authors: ‘Dichotomy in the design studio: Adapting to new blended learning environments’.

Toward a theory of the architectural subject

The extraordinary event, for Deleuze, is the object becoming subject – not in the manner of an abstract formulation, such as the substitution of one ideational representation for another but, rather, in the introduction of a vast, new, impersonal plane of subjectivity, populated by object processes and physical phenomena that in Deleuze’s discovery will be shown to constitute their own subjectivities. Deleuze’s polemic of subjectivity (the refusal of the Cartesian subject and the transcendental ego of Husserl) – long attempted by other thinkers – is unique precisely because it heralds the dawning of a new species of objecthood that will qualify as its own peculiar subjectivity. A survey of Deleuze’s early work on subjectivity, Empirisme et subjectivité (Deleuze 1953), Le Bergsonisme (Deleuze 1968), and Logique du sens (Deleuze 1969), brings the architectural reader into a peculiar confrontation with what Deleuze calls the ‘new transcendental field’, the field of subjectproducing effects, which for the philosopher takes the place of both the classical and modern subject. Deleuze’s theory of consciousness and perception is premised on the critique of Husserlian phenomenology; and ipso facto his question is an architectural problematic, even if the name ‘architecture’ is not invoked...

Guerrilla research tactics: alternative research methods

This case-study explores alternative and experimental methods of research data acquisition, through an emerging research methodology, ‘Guerrilla Research Tactics’ [GRT]. The premise is that the researcher develops covert tactics for attracting and engaging with research participants. These methods range between simple analogue interventions to physical bespoke artefacts which contain an embedded digital link to a live, interactive data collecting resource, such as an online poll, survey or similar. These artefacts are purposefully placed in environments where the researcher anticipates an encounter and response from the potential research participant. The choice of design and placement of artefacts is specific and intentional. DESCRIPTION: Additional information may include: the outcomes; key factors or principles that contribute to its effectiveness; anticipated impact/evidence of impact. This case-study assesses the application of ‘Guerrilla Research Tactics’ [GRT] Methodology as an alternative, engaging and interactive method of data acquisition for higher degree research. Extending Gauntlett’s definition of ‘new creative methods… an alternative to language driven qualitative research methods' (2007), this case-study contributes to the existing body of literature addressing creative and interactive approaches to HDR data collection. The case-study was undertaken with Masters of Architecture and Urban Design research students at QUT, in 2012. Typically students within these creative disciplines view research as a taxing and boring process, distracting them from their studio design focus. An obstacle that many students face, is acquiring data from their intended participant groups. In response to these challenges the authors worked with students to develop creative, fun, and engaging research methods for both the students and their research participants. GRT are influenced by and developed from a combination of participatory action research (Kindon, 2008) and unobtrusive research methods (Kellehear, 1993), to enhance social research. GRT takes un-obtrusive research in a new direction, beyond the typical social research methods. The Masters research students developed alternative methods for acquiring data, which relied on a combination of analogue design interventions and online platforms commonly distributed through social networks. They identified critical issues that required action by the community, and the processes they developed focused on engaging with communities, to propose solutions. Key characteristics shared between both GRT and Guerrilla Activism, are notions of political issues, the unexpected, the unconventional, and being interactive, unique and thought provoking. The trend of Guerrilla Activism has been adapted to: marketing, communication, gardening, craftivism, theatre, poetry, and art. Focusing on the action element and examining elements of current trends within Guerrilla marketing, we believe that GRT can be applied to a range of research areas within various academic disciplines.

Shut up & write! Facilitating informal learning in doctoral education

Providing help for research degree writing within a formal structure is difficult because research students come into their degree with widely varying needs and levels of experience. Providing writing assistance within a less structured learning context is an approach which has been trialled in higher education with promising results (Boud, Cohen & Sampson, 2001; Stracke, 2010; Devendish et al., 2009). While semi structured approaches have been the subject of study, little attention has been paid to the processes of informal learning which exist within doctoral education. In this paper we explore a 'writing movement' which has started to be taken up at various locations in Australia through the auspices of social media (Twitter and Facebook). 'Shut up and Write' is a concept first used in the cafe scene in San Francisco, where writers converge at a specific time and place and write together, without showing each other the outcomes, temporarily transforming writing from a solitary practice to a social one. In this paper we compare the experience of facilitating shut up and write sessions in two locations: RMIT University and Queensland University of Technology. The authors describe the set up and functioning of the different groups and report on feedback from regular participants, both physical and virtual. We suggest that informal learning practices can be exploited to assist research students to orientate themselves to the university environment and share vital technical skills, with very minimal input from academic staff. This experience suggests there is untapped potential within these kinds of activities to promote learning within the research degree experience which is sustainable and builds a stronger sense of community.

Learning landscapes 2.0 : warning - assembly required

Twenty first century learners operate in organic, immersive environments. A pedagogy of student-centred learning is not a recipe for rooms. A contemporary learning environment is like a landscape that grows, morphs, and responds to the pressures of the context and micro-culture. There is no single adaptable solution, nor a suite of off-the-shelf answers; propositions must be customisable and infinitely variable. They must be indeterminate and changeable; based on the creation of learning places, not restrictive or constraining spaces. A sustainable solution will be un-fixed, responsive to the life cycle of the components and materials, able to be manipulated by the users; it will create and construct its own history. Learning occurs as formal education with situational knowledge structures, but also as informal learning, active learning, blended learning social learning, incidental learning, and unintended learning. These are not spatial concepts but socio-cultural patterns of discovery. Individual learning requirements must run free and need to be accommodated as the learner sees fit. The spatial solution must accommodate and enable a full array of learning situations. It is a system not an object. Three major components: 1. The determinate landscape: in-situ concrete 'plate' that is permanent. It predates the other components of the system and remains as a remnant/imprint/fossil after the other components of the system have been relocated. It is a functional learning landscape in its own right; enabling a variety of experiences and activities. 2. The indeterminate landscape: a kit of pre-fabricated 2-D panels assembled in a unique manner at each site to suit the client and context. Manufactured to the principles of design-for-disassembly. A symbiotic barnacle like system that attaches itself to the existing infrastructure through the determinate landscape which acts as a fast growth rhizome. A carapace of protective panels, infinitely variable to create enclosed, semi-enclosed, and open learning places. 3. The stations: pre-fabricated packages of highly-serviced space connected through the determinate landscape. Four main types of stations; wet-room learning centres, dry-room learning centres, ablutions, and low-impact building services. Entirely customised at the factory and delivered to site. The stations can be retro-fitted to suit a new context during relocation. Principles of design for disassembly: material principles • use recycled and recyclable materials • minimise the number of types of materials • no toxic materials • use lightweight materials • avoid secondary finishes • provide identification of material types component principles • minimise/standardise the number of types of components • use mechanical not chemical connections • design for use of common tools and equipment • provide easy access to all components • make component size to suite means of handling • provide built in means of handling • design to realistic tolerances • use a minimum number of connectors and a minimum number of types system principles • design for durability and repeated use • use prefabrication and mass production • provide spare components on site • sustain all assembly and material information

Bouncing back : the role of design and making in understanding and dealing with adversity

The Bouncing Back Project, which began after the Queensland flood event in January 2011, has organically grown through a number of reiterations as per the diagram above. In the August 2011 it resulted in the physical construction of an Emergency Shelter [designed by GreenLeaf Engineers] in Sydney at the Customs House in Circular Quay and a conference paper publication at the AASA conference. To date this research has progressed without any research grant funding and has resulted in significant media interest. During the construction of the Emergency Shelter we collected a wide range of multimedia data which is being compilled into a documentary focusing on the architecture students’ experience throughout the iterations of Bouncing Back.

Changing lanes

The purpose of Changing Lanes was to question the identity of Brisbane laneways through the collaboration of local stakeholders by promoting design. Community partners provided design briefs for student work from Architecture and Interior Design to be included in a design competition. Shortlisted student projects were featured in the Changing Lanes event during which the winners were announced. In addition to student work from Architecture and Interior Design, the five other disciplines from QUT's School of Design also exhibited samples of student work. The engagement of local stakeholders; architectural practice, interior designers, engineers, and a media and publication agency was fundamental to the success of this event. The design work on display provided creative expression for the potential of Brisbane Laneways to bring communities together through the language of design. An underutilised area of Fortitude Valley was activated through a combination of media including drawings, videos, street furniture, and music.

Bouncing Back : Recovery through Design + Making

Architectural education is beginning to recognise the potential of a more intensive relationship between the tasks of designing and building (Erdman et al., 2002) within a work integrated learning environment. The Bouncing Back Project, began after the Queensland, Australia floods in January 2011, and has organically grown through a number of architectural student exhibitions, initially displaying flood responsive designs. In September 2011, 10 Queensland University of Technology architecture students travelled to Sydney to work together in helping to construct a shelter in the Emergency Shelter Exhibition, at Customs House in Circular Quay. The construction and making of the shelter, was filmed. This film documents the student experience, of making, working with industry professionals, community engagement and it reveals how this activity promotes informal work integrated learning in a real world context.

Teaching creatively, teaching for creativity : QUT’s Creative Industries Faculty Showcase Panel

In this panel, we showcase approaches to teaching for creativity in disciplines of the Media, Entertainment and Creative Arts School and the School of Design within the Creative Industries Faculty (CIF) at QUT. The Faculty is enormously diverse, with 4,000 students enrolled across a total of 20 disciplines. Creativity is a unifying concept in CIF, both as a graduate attribute, and as a key pedagogic principle. We take as our point of departure the assertion that it is not sufficient to assume that students of tertiary courses in creative disciplines are ‘naturally’ creative. Rather, teachers in higher education must embrace their roles as facilitators of development and learning for the creative workforce, including working to build creative capacity (Howkins, 2009). In so doing, we move away from Renaissance notions of creativity as an individual genius, a disposition or attribute which cannot be learned, towards a 21st century conceptualisation of creativity as highly collaborative, rhizomatic, and able to be developed through educational experiences (see, for instance, Robinson, 2006; Craft; 2001; McWilliam & Dawson, 2008). It has always been important for practitioners of the arts and design to be creative. Under the national innovation agenda (Bradley et al, 2008) and creative industries policy (e.g., Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2008; Office for the Arts, 2011), creativity has been identified as a key determinant of economic growth, and thus developing students’ creativity has now become core higher education business across all fields. Even within the arts and design, professionals are challenged to be creative in new ways, for new purposes, in different contexts, and using new digital tools and platforms. Teachers in creative disciplines may have much to offer to the rest of the higher education sector, in terms of designing and modelling innovative and best practice pedagogies for the development of student creative capability. Information and Communication Technologies such as mobile learning, game-based learning, collaborative online learning tools and immersive learning environments offer new avenues for creative learning, although analogue approaches may also have much to offer, and should not be discarded out of hand. Each panelist will present a case study of their own approach to teaching for creativity, and will address the following questions with respect to their case: 1. What conceptual view of creativity does the case reflect? 2. What pedagogical approaches are used, and why were these chosen? What are the roles of innovative learning approaches, including ICTs, if any? 3. How is creativity measured or assessed? How do students demonstrate creativity? We seek to identify commonalities and contrasts between and among the pedagogic case studies, and to answer the question: what can we learn about teaching creatively and teaching for creativity from CIF best practice?

The 7pm Project

The Making Connections: Innovations in Learning and Teaching Forum, jointly hosted by the Division of Technology, Information and Learning Support (TILS) and the Learning and Teaching Unit (LTU), was held on 20 June. The forum provided a snapshot of innovative practice across QUT, as well as an overview of services supporting innovation. Past events have attracted sizeable audiences and informal feedback has been very positive and encouraging. The objective of the forum is to give an opportunity to academic teaching staff to share their innovative practice with their peers, and it is planned that more events will be held to allow for further sharing of ideas. The program for the June 2012 forum included the following presentations: Ms Lindy Osborne: The 7pm Project Dr Ana Pavasovic: A multifaceted approach to teaching a first year unit Mr Paul Willis: Out of our comfort zone: How can Collaborate engage students in inclusive teaching practices Dr Kelly Zuniga: Can you draw what I see? Recasting the ‘crit’ to engage a larger classroom audience Dr Peter Bell, Dr Mark Lauchs, Amy Henderson and Edward Robinson: Crime Club: Lightbulb moments Dr Deboarh Peach: Improving student engagement through the integration of blended delivery approaches in WIL. Lindy Osborne Biography: As an early career academic, Lindy Osborne draws upon professional experience as a registered architect to offer students pioneering curricula that are firmly grounded in real-world practice. Since commencing her academic career in 2008, she has purposefully reconceptualised the delivery of Architectural Design, Technology, Professional Practice and Research subjects, using innovative digital technology and empowering students to direct their own learning. Lindy is cognisant of the impact that the physical learning environment has on students, and seeks to actively modify it to support students by enabling powerful enactive learning. Using technology embedded flexible learning spaces and innovative simulated office practice pedagogy,students actively learn in an authentic environment, redressing the structural and cyclical factors that have resulted in a lack of workplace learning opportunities. Lindy’s creative integration of interdisciplinary opportunities, popular culture, social media and Web-2.0 technologies connects with students on their level, while they develop critical professional skills both inside and perhaps more importantly outside, the formal classroom environment.

Dichotomy in the design studio : adapting to new blended learning environments

Since the architectural design studio learning environment was first established in the early 19th century at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, there has been a complete transformation in how the discipline of architecture is practiced and how students of architecture acquire information. Digital technologies allow students to access information instantly and learning is no longer confined to the rigid boundaries of a physical campus environment. In many schools of architecture in Australia, the physical design studio learning environments however, remain largely unchanged. Many learning environments could be mistaken for those last refurbished 30 years ago, being devoid of any significant technological intervention. While some teaching staff are eagerly embracing new digital technologies and attempting to modify their pedagogical approaches, the physical design studio learning environment is resistant to such efforts. In a study aimed at better understanding how staff and students adapt to new blended learning environments, a group of 165 second year architecture students at a large school of architecture in Australia were separated into two different design studio learning environments. 70% of students were allocated to a traditional design studio setting and 30% to a new, high technology embedded, prototype digital learning laboratory. The digital learning laboratory was purpose designed for the case-study users, adapted Student-Centred Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs [SCALE-UP] principles, and built as part of a larger university research project. The architecture students attended the same lectures, followed the same studio curriculum and completed the same pieces of assessment; the only major differences were the teaching staff and physical environment within which the studios were conducted. At the end of the semester, all staff and students were asked to complete a questionnaire about their experiences and preferences within the two respective learning environments. The questionnaire response rate represented the opinions of 100% of the 10 teaching staff and over 70% of the students. Using a qualitative grounded theory approach, data were coded, extrapolated and compared, to reveal emerging key themes. The key themes formed the basis for in-depth interviews and focus groups of teaching staff and students, allowing the researchers to understand the data in more detail. The results of the data verified what had become increasingly evident during the course of the semester: an underlying negative resistance to the new digital studio learning environment, by both staff and students. Many participants openly exhibited a yearning for a return to the traditional design studio learning environments, particularly when the new technology caused frustration, by being unreliable or failing altogether. This paper reports on the study, discusses the negative resistance and explores the major contributors to resistance. The researchers are not aware of any similar previous studies across these particular settings and believe that it offers a necessary and important contribution to emergent research about adaptation to new digital learning environments.