Collaborative Learning Experiences in a Changing Environment: Innovative Educational Approaches in Architecture
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Scope
2. Integration of Sustainability and Resilience in Architectural Education
Barriers and Gaps
- Separation between theoretical and design studio modules, sustainability related ones are often episodic and not integrated within the whole learning program [11,44,59]. This often prevents from effectively exploring the implications of the core theories in addressing the applications in real-context [39,56];
- Predominance of a performance-based approach to sustainability, which sometimes limits the rise of adequate theoretical and formal speculations. Building technology courses are the core of sustainability teachings [11,46,47] with a focus on energy efficiency, thermal control, ventilation, and lighting [11], while contextual environmental conditions, as the local identities and social dynamics are often overlooked.
3. Critical Pedagogy and Experiential Learning as Tools to Embed Sustainability
Research-Based Learning and Experiential Active Learning in Architecture
4. Methodology
4.1. A Case Study Approach
4.2. Research Design
4.3. Description of the Cases
5. Outcomes
5.1. Thematic Analysis of Interviews
5.1.1. Effectiveness of Experiential Model of Learning
“Working with a real context creates a transformative experience through which students perceive the complexity of what it means to interact with the problems of climate change at ground level. This allows them to deal with multidisciplinarity, and specialistic components while they learn to interact with the territorial actors of physical transformations, such as decision-maker and people having in that context their daily dimension.”(R2)
“Students are called to reflect on the role of actors engaged in the process of transformation of the built environment, for example translating UN-Sustainable Development Goals in specific contexts where constrains of territorial planning, spatial governance and political issues make hard to introduce effective changes. This pushes them to learn to give due weight to the vulnerability and fragility of territories and people”(R4)
“The design-build projects we developed overcome the purely technical or academic dimension, as they were community-related and faced real process, real material, institutional barriers, lack of technical skills and available economic resource, as well as of people engagement and willingness. This strong contact whit the actual operational conditions change architectural education, often acting as a life-changing experience for students and their perspectives on their career and professional future.”(R5)
5.1.2. Tools for Learning Contextual Sustainability and Students’ Skills
“The students have to learn applying tools to assess the built environment environmental performances and measure the response of architecture to stressing climate conditions. They can so go beyond the mere form in designing architectures and consider environmental parameters as means to give quality to the projects beyond the solely technical dimension. Tools for process analysis and assessment are as well necessary to understand the social and political context of the interventions.”(R2)
“The students require methodological preparation to be capable to integrate information not just on needs, expectation and claims of communities (that could be relatively simple) but also on decisional and governance constrains and power relationship. They need tools for active learning and observation, to represent what they found, and to communicate the findings to the engaged actors….”(R4)
“IWP is an important moment in the educational development, as it is an intense learning experience where be together, live together, inhabiting the intervention place, so creating a physical and emotional approach to the course subject. Students are immerged in the reality of the project, and they feel the experience”(R3)
5.1.3. Methodologies, Enabling Factors, and Limitations
“To adjust theoretical knowledge to real problems”(R5)
“To create hybrid environments that can allow sharing, collaboration and participation of diverse actors (experts, decision makers, city officials, students). This provides a suitable framework to build Research-Action pathways bringing together experiential learning, public engagement, and applied research”(R4)
“To dialogue with the case complexity by operating in-field”(R2)
“Students are embedded in a context of applied research; we teach what we research. What they study matters to the sustainable transformation of the built environment and to people who live that environment. An inquiry-based method means to think out of the box, where are no given question or predetermined answers. So, students vehiculate in interactive ways the knowledge they have gained in field. This both for design studios and more research-oriented courses too.”(R5)
“The experiential activities such as Living Labs can generate expectations in communities. This may easily trigger divergencies and mismatching between the research goals and community aspirations”(R3)
5.1.4. Evaluation of the Students’ Educational Pathway
“Assessment focuses more on learning than performance. What matters is that students are able to approach field work methodically. This requires them to be involved in cross-cutting interactions even beyond the specific educational aims of the program, as the main target is precisely to support students in this experience, from which they may learn something relevant for their life”(R5)
“I evaluate the capability to be active and not a passive recipient. The experiential learning in itself looks to shift the student attitude, so their willingness to be active protagonist is crucial, even when this means to fail or face troubles. It’s not important the result but the engagement on the field, as the outcome can also be limited, but the student will cope with the complexity of the context and this is more relevant”(R4)
“A student skill I consider fundamental is to confront and represent complex reality in its multiple aspects… Graphic representation translates conceptual clarity […]. Verbal capability reinforces this compelling narrative. Communication across multiple representational platforms is fostered. Students who effectively engage with multi-sectoral stakeholders are well scored, as this is a very useful skill for their career.”(R1)
5.1.5. Co-Production of Knowledge and Impacted Domains
- The engagement of students in public debate on built environment transformation;
- The integration of data from field work in the design stage as a mean to leverage community action and bridge it with decision makers based on shared evidences;
- The creation of hybrid interfaces that can reflect changes in real practices.
“Students learn more in the outside and real world then in academia, as they better learn to be young professionals by participating to the public debate”(R6)
“Students have become the key, the bridge with local communities, and this is precisely a model of experiential learning that builds knowledge through co-production. Outcomes are built together with local actors and everyone engaged is co-learning something”(R4)
“Urban actors are influenced by how they are involved in the design process and how they bring this knowledge into their reality. In my experience, student studies and projects provide the community with a means to push policy makers to action; so they become effective policy statements. This outcome can demonstrate our effectiveness in conveying student work that is clear and compelling to the community. For example, in Gowanus (Brooklyn), city officials considered the planning impact of our climate projections on our community stakeholders, while in Naples our climate analysis integrated community knowledge and resident needs”(R1)
“I often encountered issues about power symmetries. Decision makers often don’t know so much about people and territories and inversely community don’t know about the complexity of decision-making regarding spaces. The fieldworks studies require a long-term relationship with inhabitants but allow to overcome this gap, making visible things that are often neglected by both research and public authorities. Working with communities and public actors is a complex partnership, exposed to the risk of manipulation of the findings for political purpose. Building hybrid interfaces which stimulate participation of a plurality of subjects may overcame this risk.”(R4)
5.1.6. Key Expertise and Responsibilities of Future Architects and Educators
“Students have become expert in being part of complex processes, avoiding being reductivist. This is the needed expertise to accept conflicts, dialoguing with different perspective. Critical thinking is fundamental to orient processes to future trajectories and transformative pathways”(R4)
“They have to think, behave and design as citizens. They have to know that their profession is about what the people or the city really need”(R6)
“Future architect must be trained to facilitate communities in developing new imaginaries and identifying their aspirations, not just their needs. They can bring awareness and empowerment translating their vision of the future”(R4)
5.1.7. Key Architectural Research and Educational Topics
“We need methods and practical tools for co-design and for evidence-based projects to deliver quantitative and scientific analysis to be mediated with field information. This integration has to be pursued to interact with collective intelligence and the complexity of reality. For example, an effective tool to be further investigated is gamification”(R2)
“We need to engage the societal challenges we are facing and confront directly their complexity. Design thinking does this: as architect we are problem-solvers; cross-sectorial thinkers with unique skills.”(R1)
“The topic of the integrated risk (social and environmental) is embedded in current society and represents the frontier of uncertainty. We need to cope with fuzzy answers through preparedness, approximation, and intuition, so staying in uncertainty without succumbing”(R4)
“We need to move forward bioclimatic architecture, energy efficiency and sustainable development. We need reconceptualizing the building life cycle, health, comfort condition and circular economy, by embedding more meaningful frameworks such as resilience, disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. The idea of sustainable architecture is obsolete. The need and demands are strongly changing, and they call for processes deeply embedding the uncertainty.”(R5)
5.2. Learning Activities, Actors, Co-Produced Outcomes
6. Discussion of Results
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Interview Guide
- How an experience-based oriented model can change the integration of climate-change/sustainability topics in architectural education according to your experience?
- Which are the most effective tools for learning that have been implemented in your teaching experience, which skills they are capable to enhance in students?
- Can you indicate synthetically methodologies/enabling factors/limitations?
- Can you describe how did you assess the educational pathway of the students and how do you evaluate the results obtained?
- Evaluate the effectiveness of the knowledge-transfer (academia-community-practitioners-decision-makers). Which are the impacts and on which domain (e.g., education, society, policy, research)?
- Can you define which are the key-expertise and responsibilities for future generation of architects? Which are as well your responsibilities as educators?
- Which are the lines of research/topics (3 main challenges) that need to be further implemented to meet societal needs and allow students of architecture to cope in their professional practice with a tangible crisis scenario?
References
- Folke, C.; Polasky, S.; Rockström, J.; Galaz, V.; Westley, F.; Lamont, M.; Scheffer, M.; Österblom, H.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S.; et al. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio 2021, 50, 834–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cavicchioli, R.; Ripple, W.J.; Timmis, K.N.; Azam, F.; Bakken, L.R.; Baylis, M.; Behrenfeld, M.J.; Boetius, A.; Boyd, P.W.; Classen, A.; et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity: Microorganisms and climate change. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2019, 17, 569–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Folke, C.; Biggs, R.; Norström, A.V.; Reyers, B.; Rockström, J. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauws, W. Embracing uncertainty without abandoning planning. DisP Plan. Rev. 2017, 53, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salingaros, N. Complexity in architecture and design. Oz J. 2014, 36, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salama, A.M. Seeking responsive forms of pedagogy in architectural education. Field J. 2013, 5, 9–30. [Google Scholar]
- Salingaros, N.A.; Nikos, A.; Kenneth, G. Intelligence-based design: A sustainable foundation for worldwide architectural education. Int. J. Archit. Res. 2008, 2, 129–188. [Google Scholar]
- Grigosono, A.M. Design as a strategy for dealing with complexity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Complex Systems (ICCS 2011), Quincy, MA, USA, 26 June–1 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Wiek, A.; Withycombe, L.; Redman, C.L. Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development. Sustain. Sci. 2011, 6, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ragheb, A.; El-Shimy, H.; Ragheb, G. Green Architecture: A Concept of Sustainability. Procedia 2016, 216, 778–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Santini, T. Guilty by association: Addressing sustainability in architecture education. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 5, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salingaros, N. Two Series of Essays on Architectural Education; Architexturez Imprints: New Delhi, India, 2020; Available online: https://patterns.architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-193386 (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- E-Flux Architecture. Architecture Education Declares—Open Letter to the Architectural Community: A Call for Curriculum Change. 2021. Available online: https://www.architectureeducationdeclares.com (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Wood, H. Architects Take Climate Action! Archinect Speaks to Practitioners and Educators Taking on the Challenge of Adapting to the Climate Emergency. 2020. Available online: https://archinect.com/features/article/150232535/architects-take-climate-action-archinect-speaks-to-practitioners-and-educators-taking-on-the-challenge-of-adapting-to-the-climate-emergency (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Salingaros, N. Lesson Plan #1: Signs vs. Symptoms. A Reply to the Open Letter from British Architecture Students Calling for Curriculum Change. Available online: http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature579.htm (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Boys-Smith, N.; Scruton, R. Lesson Plan #3: Beauty and Sustainability in Architectural Education. Available online: https://patterns.architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-193111 (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Mathias, A., Jr. Lesson Plan #6: Teacher, Don’t Teach Them Nonsense. Reforming Architecture’s Broken Education. Available online: https://patterns.architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-193230 (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Budds, D.; Zellner, P. Architecture Schools Are Failing—This Designer Is Calling for a Revolution. 2016. Available online: https://www.fastcompany.com/3064302/architecture-education-is-broken-this-architect-has-a-plan-to-fix-it (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- United Nations (UN). Climate Action. 2021. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/climate-solutions/cities-pollution (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- U.S. Energy Information and Administration. International Energy Outlook. 2013. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2013).pdf (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Butera, F.M. Climatic change and the built environment. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2010, 4, 45–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, R.; Gregg, M. Using UK climate change projections to adapt existing English homes for a warming climate. Build. Environ. 2012, 55, 20–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrić, I.; Le Corre, O.; Lacarrière, B.; Ferrao, P.; Al-Ghamdi, S.G. Initial approximation of the implications for architecture due to climate change. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2019, 15, 337–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahdavinejad, M.; Zia, A.; Larki, A.N.; Ghanavati, S.; Elmi, N. Dilemma of green and pseudo green architecture based on LEED norms in case of developing countries. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2014, 3, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hagbert, P.; Bradley, K. Transitions on the home front: A story of sustainable living beyond eco-efficiency. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 31, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guy, S.C.; Farmer, G. Reinterpreting sustainable architecture: The place of technology. J. Arch. Educ. 2001, 54, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerschner, C.; Wächter, P.; Nierling, L.; Ehlers, M.-H. Degrowth and technology: Towards feasible, viable, appropriate and convivial imaginaries. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1619–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunwald, A. Diverging pathways to overcoming the environmental crisis: A critique of eco-modernism from a technology assessment perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1854–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turpin, E. Introduction: Who Does the Earth Think It Is, Now? In Architecture in the Anthropocene: Encounters among Design, Deep Time, Science and Philosophy; Turpin, E., Ed.; Open Humanities Press: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Tavares, P. The geological imperative: On the political ecology of the Amazonia’s deep history. In Architecture in the Anthropocene: Encounters among Design, Deep Time, Science and Philosophy; Turpin, E., Ed.; Open Humanities Press: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Roche, F. Matters of fabulation: On the construction of realities in the Anthropocene. In Architecture in the Anthropocene: Encounters among Design, Deep Time, Science and Philosophy; Turpin, E., Ed.; Open Humanities Press: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Donovan, E. Explaining sustainable architecture. IOP Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, S.J.; Golton, B.L. Sustainable development concepts and practice in the built environment—A UK perspective. Fuel Energy Abstr. 1995, 4, 299. [Google Scholar]
- Guy, S.C. Pragmatic ecologies: Situating sustainable building. Arch. Sci. Rev. 2010, 53, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guy, S.C.; Moore, S.A. Sustainable architecture and the pluralist imagination. J. Arch. Educ. 2007, 60, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lanzara, C. Shifting Practices: Reflections on Technology, Practice, and Innovation; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed; Continuum Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning; Prentice-Hall International: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Salama, A.M. Transformative pedagogy: Knowledge construction and effective curriculum delivery in a competitive higher education. Tawasol Qatar Univ. Educ. Reform J. 2010, 12, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
- Altomonte, S.; Rutherford, P.; Wilson, R. Mapping the way forward: Education for sustainability in architecture and urban design. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2012, 21, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altomonte, S. Environmental education for sustainable architecture. Rev. Eur. Stud. 2009, 1, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altomonte, S. Education for Sustainable Environmental Design: The EDUCATE Project Summary of Results; EDUCATE Press: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Advance, H.E. Education for Sustainable Development Guidance. 2021. Available online: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/teaching-and-learning/education-sustainable-development-higher-education (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Gucyeter, B. The place of sustainability in architectural education: Discussion and suggestions. Athens J. Arch. 2016, 2, 237–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartman, H. Is sustainability just another “ism”? Arch. Des. 2012, 82, 136–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altomonte, S.; Canguelli, E.; De Herde, A.; Horvath, S.; Lopez De Asian, M.; Riemer, A.; Yannas, S. Education for Sustainable Environmental Design—The EDUCATE Project. 2012. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331528095_education_for_sustainable_environmental_design_the_educate_project (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Álvarez, S.P.; Lee, K.; Park, J.; Rieh, S.-Y. A comparative study on sustainability in architectural education in Asia—With a focus on professional degree curricula. Sustainability 2016, 8, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ostwald, M.J.; Williams, A. Understanding Architectural Education in Australia; Australian Learning and Teaching Council: Sydney, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K.Y.D.; Geon, K. A study on integrating sustainability into architectural education curriculum in Korea. J. Archit. Inst. Korea 2012, 28, 127–138. [Google Scholar]
- Taleghani, M.; Ansari, H.R.; Jennings, P. Sustainability in architectural education: A comparison of Iran and Australia. Renew. Energy 2011, 36, 2021–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, J. Introducing sustainability into the architecture curriculum in the United States. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2003, 4, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismail, M.A.; Keumala, N.; Dabdoob, R.M. Review on integrating sustainability knowledge into architectural education: Practice in the UK and the USA. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1542–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassanpour, B.; Atun, R.A.; Ghaderi, S. From words to action: Incorporation of sustainability in architectural education. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grant, E.J. Mainstreaming environmental education for architects: The need for basic literacies. Build. Cities 2020, 1, 538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stupar, A.; Mihajlov, V.; Simic, I. Towards the conceptual changes in architectural education: Adjusting to climate change. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Salama, A.M. Evaluation research and inquiry-based learning (IBL) in architecture and urbanism: Consumption versus production of knowledge. In Enhancing Building Performance; Mallory-Hill, S., Preiser, W., Watson, C., Eds.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 277–284. [Google Scholar]
- Grover, R.; Emmitt, S.; Copping, A. Critical learning for sustainable architecture: Opportunities for design studio pedagogy. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 53, 101876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basa, I. Environmental discourse of architecture. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2009, 66, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karol, E. Using campus concerns about sustainability as an educational opportunity: A case study in architectural design. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 780–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Budowle, R.; Krszjzaniek, E.; Taylor, C. Students as change agents for community-university sustainability transition partnerships. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salama, A.M.; Wilkinson, N. Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future; The Urban International Press: Gateshead, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Webster, H. Architectural education after Schön: Cracks, blurs, boundaries and beyond. J. Educ. Built Environ. 2008, 3, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bridges, A. Problem based learning in architectural education. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference “Bringing ITC Knowledge to Work“ (W78), Maribor, Slovenia, 27–29 June 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Jarrett, C. Social practice: Design education and everyday life. In Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism; Nicol, D., Pilling, S., Eds.; Spoon Press: London, UK, 2000; pp. 49–59. [Google Scholar]
- Sanoff, H. Democratic Design. Participation Case Studies in Urban and Small-Town Environments; VDM Publishing: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Khorshidifard, S. A paradigm in architectural education: Kolb’s Model and learning styles in studio pedagogy. In Proceedings of the 2011 ARCC—Considering Research: Reflecting upon current themes in Architecture Research, Detroit, MI, USA, 20–23 April 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Loh, P. Making as pedagogy: Engaging technology in design teaching. In Advanced Learning and Teaching Environments; Llevot-Calvet, N., Bernad-Cavero, O., Eds.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2018; pp. 137–155. [Google Scholar]
- Kowaltowski, D.C.C.K.; Da Silva, V.G.; Neves, L.D.O.; Deliberador, M.; Zara, O.; Colleto, G.M.; Victorio, E.R. Action research and architectural sustainable design education: A case study in Brazil. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2019, 30, 815–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canizaro, V. Design-build in architectural education: Motivations, practices, challenges, successes and failures. Archnet IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2012, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez, C.M. A method for experiential learning and significant learning in architectural education via live projects. Arts Humanit. High. Educ. 2017, 17, 279–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCleskey, S.; Allison, D. Collaboration for service learning in architectural education. Art Doc. J. Art Libr. Soc. N. Am. 2000, 19, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welsh, M.A.; Murray, D.L. The e-collaborative: Teaching sustainability through critical pedagogy. J. Manag. Educ. 2003, 27, 220–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Koldewyn, J.; Brain, R.G.H. Assessing community need and interest to address city-wide sustainability issues: A tri-part collaboration between local city government, community partners and a university. Sustain. J. Rec. 2016, 9, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowe, G.; Frewer, L. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 2005, 30, 251–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robey, D.; Taylor, W.T. Engaged participant observation: An integrative approach to qualitative field research for practitioner-scholars. Engaged Manag. Rev. 2018, 2, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerring, J. Case selection for case-study analysis: Qualitative and quantitative techniques. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology; Box-Steffensmeier, J.M., Brady, H.E., Collier, D., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Seawright, J.; Gerring, J. Case selection techniques in case study research. Political Res. Q. 2008, 61, 294–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Ebneyamini, S.; Moghadam, M.R.S. Toward developing a framework for conducting case study research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2018, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yazan, B. Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. Qual. Rep. 2015, 20, 134–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, K.E.; Stake, R.E. The art of case study research. Mod. Lang. J. 1996, 80, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pauly, B.M.; Mills, A.; Durepos, G.; Wiebe, E. Direct Observation as Evidence. In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research; Mills, A., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 302–305. [Google Scholar]
- Kvale, S.; Brinkmann, S. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Elo, S.; Kääriäinen, M.; Kanste, O.I.; Pölkki, T.; Utriainen, K.; Kyngäs, H. Qualitative content analysis. SAGE Open 2014, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Cresswell, J.W.; Plano Clark, V.L. Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Palinkas, L.A.; Horwitz, S.; Green, C.; Wisdom, J.; Duan, N.; Hoagwood, K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm. Policy Ment. Health Serv. Res. 2013, 42, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tierney, W.G.; Dilley, P.; Gubrium, J.; Holstein, J. Interviewing in Education; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 453–471. [Google Scholar]
- Seidman, I. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences, 3rd ed.; Teachers College Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Frey, J.H.; Lewis-Beck, M.; Bryman, A.; Liao, T. Open-Ended Question; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Terzigni, E.; Leone, M. Climate-Resilient Urban Design, Regenerating Cities through Adaptive Mitigation Solutions—Napoli. 2018. Available online: http://diarc.unina.it/downloads/2019_Climate-resilient/Crud_Book_2019.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Leone, M.; Raven, J. Multi-scale and adaptive-mitigation design methods for climate resilient cities. TECHNE J. Technol. Archit. Environ. 2018, 15, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Alençon, R.; Visconti, C. Community-based initiatives in post catastrophe scenarios: Potentials and limitations to academic involvement and “learning by doing”. UPLanD J. Urban Plan. Landsc. Environ. Des. 2016, 1, 171. [Google Scholar]
- Visconti, C. Community-based adaptation measures for water sensitive urban design in context of socio-environmental vulnerability. TECHNE J. Technol. Archit. Environ. 2017, 14, 352–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palestino, M.F.; Amore, M.P.; Cunto, S.; Molinaro, W. Le Scuole come Infrastruttura Socio-Ecologica di Riequilibrio del Metabolismo Urbano. 2020. Available online: https://arts.units.it/retrieve/handle/11368/2976604/348429/Copertina_indice_sessione1.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Palestino, M.F.; Visconti, C. Promoting counter visuality on climate resilience in a marginalized district of Naples (Italy). In Proceedings of the N-AERUS Conference, Berlin, Germany, 4–6 February 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Fetzer, E.; Ruggieri, D. Landscape Education for Democracy. Creare un Istruzione Partecipata alla Pianificazione e alla Progettazione del Paesaggio per lo Sviluppo Sostenibile. 2019. Available online: https://in-bo.unibo.it/issue/view/816 (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Braneon, C.; Raven, J.; Esposito, M. Urban Design Climate Workshop: Gowanus, Brooklyn. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344597482_Urban_Design_Climate_Workshop_Gowanus_Brooklyn (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Grafakos, S.; Pacteau, C.; Delgado, M.; Landauer, M.; Lucon, O.; Driscoll, P. Integrating mitigation and adaptation opportunities and challenges. In Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network; Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Romero-Lankao, P., Mehrotra, S., Dhakal, S., Ibrahim, S.A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 101–138. ISBN 978-1316603338. [Google Scholar]
- Visconti, C. Socio-technical resilient cells: Testing of adaptive technological solutions at community scale. In Environmental Design for Climate Change Adaptation. Tools and Guidelines for Climate Risk Reduction; D’Ambrosio, V., Leone, M.F., Eds.; Clean Edizion: Naples, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Damayanthi, S. Thematic Analysis of Interview Data in the Context of Management Controls Research; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Respondents | Case | Profile | Research Field |
---|---|---|---|
R1 | 1 | Associate Professor and former Director, Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Design, School of Architecture and Design, New York Institute of Technology | Climate-resilient design and planning, Sustainable Architecture |
R2 | Ph.D., University of Naples Federico II, Assistant Professor in Technological and Environmental Design at Department of Architecture, Senior Researcher at PLINIVS Study Centre | Climate-resilient Design, Disaster Risk Reduction, Sustainable Architecture | |
R3 | 2 | Research Fellow in Architecture, Architectural Theory and Design, Landscape and Infrastructures, Department of Architecture, University of Bologna | Sacred Architecture, Collaborative Design, Community-based Architecture |
R4 | 3 | Associate Professor in Urban Planning and Planning Theory, Member of the Scientific board of the Doctoral Program in Architecture University of Naples Federico II (UNINA), responsible of the Public Engagement Policy of UNINA for the Department of Architecture | Community-based planning, Urban Political Ecology, Culture-led regeneration policies |
R5 | 4 | Assistant Professor in Technological and Environmental Design, Academic Deputy Director of the School of Architecture of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile | Sustainable Architecture, Disaster Risk Reduction, Construction Materials, Community-based Architecture |
R6 | 5 | Assistant Professor in Urban Planning and Territorial Governance and Management, Director of Cities Observatory UC and of Programme Plans and Urban Projects UC, School of Architecture and Institute of Urban and Territorial Studies of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile | Disaster Risk Reduction, Climate Change Adaptation, Territorial Governance and Planning |
CASES | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | UCCRN Edu-Urban Climate Change Research Network Educational | ||||
Within the global research network of UCCRN based at Earth Institute of Columbia University, the Urban Design Climate Workshops (UDCW) educational initiative has been established since 2015 with the aim to integrate and scale-up climate change mitigation and adaptation in cities through knowledge sharing, collaboration, and action planning. Several partner institutions (New York Institute of Technology, University of Naples Federico II, Polytechnic of Milan, Université Gustave Eiffel, Aalborg University) joint the network delivering design studio activities with architecture, urban design and planning students implemented in several cities (Paris 2015, New York 2017, Napoli 2018, Aalborg 2019, Paris 2021). Alongside UDCW intensive study programs, post-graduate courses focused on climate-resilient planning and design principles and methods have been carried out at Polytechnic of Milan (Urban and Landscape Regeneration Studio 2016–2019, Sustainable Architecture and Landscape Design Master Program), and New York Institute of Technology (Urban Design Climate Lab 2015-2021, Architecture, Urban and Regional Design Master Program). | |||||
C2 | LED2LEAP-Landscape Education for Democracy towards Learning Empowerment Agency Partnership | ||||
-Landscape Education for Democracy towards Learning Empowerment Agency Partnership (LED2LEAP): the study course has been developed in the framework of ERASMUS+ European Union grant program (2019–2022) with the aim to prepare the future generation of landscape architects, planners, architects, and designers for their role as democratic leaders for sustainability. The consortium consists of the following universities and NGOs: LE:NOTRE Institute (Netherlands), Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Umwelt Nürtingen-Geislingen (Germany), University of Bologna (Italy), Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and the NGO Partners KultúrAktív (Hungary) and EtaBeta Cooperative (Italy). Here, we take in consideration the two modules course (theory on Participatory Action Research and the Living Lab) carried on by the University of Bologna (2020–2021), designed for master and doctoral students of Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering | |||||
C3 | Ponticelli SmartLab and LAC-Climate Action Lab Naples | ||||
In the framework of two participatory research projects of University of Naples Federico II (Metropolis project and Occupy Climate Change), educational activities have been developed at Department of Architecture from 2017–2021 (Intensive Workshop Program, Living Lab and research-based courses) to foster public engagement on the topic of climate-resilience and promote service-learning initiatives for students. For this study we focus on the experiences of the course “Tools for Territorial Transformation 2020–2021” (Sustainable development and Territorial Network Bachelor Program) and Resilient Cells Intensive Workshop Program within the Living Lab Ponticelli SmartLab 2017 (Architecture Master Program). | |||||
C4 | Design-build Reclaiming Heritage | ||||
Reclaiming Heritage is an international network composed with academics and students, established since 2009 at Faculty of Architecture of Technische Universität Berlin (Habitat Unit chair) to engage in Design-Build learning and research activities through studios and intensive workshop programs for students at master level. We explore the experiences of two major post-disaster reconstruction educational activities, Chanco Prototype (2010–2013) and Rebuild Haiti Homes (2013–2015). | |||||
C5 | PPUC-Plans and Urban Projects Program Universidad Católica | ||||
The program belongs to the Faculty of Architecture, Design and Urban Studies of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. It has the mission to provide a framework to create convergence between applied research of urban and territorial development, planning and management, governance structures, and educational activities. In this study, we consider two research-based courses, Resilient by Design: urban project Diego de Almagro (Master Laboratory of Research and Design 2017–2019) and Multi-Hazard Santiago: Underlying Factors for Resilience Assessment, Integrated Planning and Design (Laboratory of Research and Design 2020). Both are curricular courses of Master in Urban Design (MPUR) and Master in Sustainable Architecture and Energy (MASE). | |||||
The analyzed case-studies: detailed information | |||||
CASES | Context of Case Studies | Disciplinary Field | Topics | Variables Examined | Student Outcomes |
C1 | New York, Gowanus (USA) East Naples (Italy) | Building Technology Urban Design | Climate Resilient Design | Urban climate hazards (Heat waves and Flood) Urbanization trends Infrastructures | Climate Analysis |
Urban Form Technologies and Materials Vegetation cover | Scenario-Based design Projects | ||||
On-going planning Community Needs | Videos Collective mapping | ||||
C2 | Bologna, Community of Ex Villa Salus (Italy) | Urban Design Landscape | Landscape and democracy Action Research | Social innovation Socio-cultural integration Local food production Waste Local Networks Mobility | Participatory Analysis and synthesis Collaborative visioning Co-design and Transformation |
C3 | Naples, Ponticelli and Historical centre (Italy) | Environmental Design, Urban Planning | Climate Resilience Community Resilience Community-based adaptation | Socio-ecological Vulnerability Community Resilience Bottom-up Initiatives Governance On-going planning | Urban Analysis Participatory Surveys Co-design Self-construction |
C4 | Chanco (Chile) Croix-des-bouquets (Haiti) | Environmental Design and Building Technology | Heritage Building Life Cycle Local Materials Low-tech Post disaster interventions Community Resilience | Climate related and geophysical Hazards Bottom-up Initiatives Social Vulnerability Construction Materials and Technologies | Co-design Self-construction |
C5 | Diego de Almagro, Chañaral, Region Metropolitana Santiago, Litoral Central (Chile) | Urban Planning Urban Design, Environmental Design | Disaster Risk Reduction Climate Change Adaptation | Climate related and geophysical Hazards Governance On-going planning Vegetation Patterns Services and resources Infrastructures Bottom-up Initiatives Social Vulnerability | Urban Analysis Interviews Environmental surveys First-hand Research Videos |
Thematic Analysis Question 1 | Respondents |
---|---|
Transformative approach | R2 |
Real-life context stimulates to work with complexity | R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 |
Sustainability as mediated outcome among multiple interests | R4, R3 |
Sustainability as an empty label | R3 |
Context-based feasibility of climate resilient measures | R4 |
Inclusion of multiples inputs and perspectives | R1, R2 |
Climate change issues visibility and work on it at ground | R5, R2, R4 |
Life changing experience, orient further career | R5, R2 |
Reflect on the role of actors engaged in the process of transformation of the built environment | R2, R4 |
Understanding of constrains of territorial planning, spatial governance and political issues | R2, R4, R5 |
Understanding of urban design, architecture projects and planning as processual, overcoming aesthetic and forms | R1, R2, R4 |
Human dimension of architecture and community needs and conflicts, daily life | R3, R4, R5 |
Overcoming of the sustainability as purely technical | R3, R4 |
Inclusion of identity of people and places | R3, R4, R5, R6 |
Experiencing materiality of doing and building | R5 |
Understanding of interlinkages between urbanization processes with environmental processes | R6 |
Thematic Analysis Question 2 | Respondents |
---|---|
Tools | |
Learning tools are tailored to gain specific outcomes Traditional learning tools such seminars Applied Research Methodologies Performance-based and scenario-based tools Process-based tools Round tables with political actors and relevant authorities Focus groups with local communities, NGOs Intensive Workshop Programs Participant Observation Field work Mapping of actors Interviews Videos and visual communication Diagramming and graphical representation of information Reading, writing exercises and discussions Creative discussion and brainstorming Active listening and interaction with public actors Representation of field information to feed the dialogue with communities and public actors Reading and deconstruction of decisional documents Capacity building with local actors Co-design Gamification Living Lab | R1, R6 R5, R4, R5, R6 R1, R2 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 R4, R6 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 R1, R2, R3, R4 R4 R4, R5 R6 R4, R5, R6 R2, R6 R1, R4 R5, R6 R6 R4 R4, R6 R4 R2 R2, R5 R2 R3, R4 |
Skills | |
Capability to communicate with different actors Capability to understand climate change at urban level Ability to create dialogue and mediate between inputs and conflicting interest Ownership of the design process Horizontal partnerships with actors Creativity Active engagement and proactiveness Professional attitude | R1, R2, R3, R4, R6 R1 R2, R4, R5, R6 R2 R2, R4 R3, R4 R3, R4, R5, R1, R4 |
Thematic Analysis Question 3 | Respondents |
---|---|
Methodologies adopted | |
Inquiry-based projects Research-based cases Field works Bottom-up survey Training to focus groups Design of Action-Research projects Living lab Service learning Creative brainstorming Collective mapping | R4, R5, R6 R1, R2, R4, R6 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 R3 R6 R4 R3, R4 R4, R5 R6 R1, R2 |
Enabling Factors | |
Active networking between university, local communities, public actors and civil society agencies Sufficient time to build the context-based experience Long term engagement of researchers/educators on the field Financial coverage for at least 3 years Think out of the box Clarity to not rise expectations in communities Ability to manage divergencies and conflicts Clarity and flexibility of the approach and adaptability of the methodology to the context Engagement of key actors during a previous time window Previous knowledge of the key actors on the topics | R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 R2, R4, R5 R4, R5, R6 R2, R4, R5, R6 R5 R2, R5, R3, R4 R2 R2, R4 R2, R4 |
Limitations | |
Lack of scientific rigor (complexity of different disciplines) in favor of educational results Limit of research outcomes and divergence between research goals and community expectations Risk of create expectation in communities Risk of manipulation by political authorities Lack of economic resources Urban policies constrains Mismatching between academic timing (e.g., semester courses) and local processes Distrust in public institutions Pandemic and social upsurge as barrier for fieldworks | R2, R6 R2, R3, R4 R3 R4 R4 R2 R2, R4, R5, R6 R4 R4, R6 |
Thematic Analysis Question 4 | Respondents |
---|---|
Modes of evaluation | |
Comprehensive evaluation of the students progresses Intermediate evaluations Final exam External jury for final evaluation External jury for reviews and comments | R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 R5, R6 R4 |
What is evaluated | |
Focus on learning processes of students and not on their performances Student engagement with the case in the field Capability to investigate the field and the broader context Proactiveness Design skills Narrative and story-telling skills Ability to integrate in the project theory and analytical contents Ability to work in team Communicational skills Capability to convey the work done to community and public actors | R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 R3, R4 R3, R4, R6 R3, R4, R5 R1, R2 R1, R2, R6 R2, R4 R1, R2, R5 R1, R6 R1 |
Thematic Analysis Question 5 | Respondents |
---|---|
Capacity building in public actors Evidence-based projects and case study outcomes as leverage to push community action towards decision making Case study outcomes to bridge community and public actors Project as prototype for transformation Students as bridge between academia and communities Role of academia and research in public engagement Knowledge transfer between research and education Test of research through students’ activities (with limitations) Implementation of student’s outcomes in research Rare but possible influences on policies Ineffectiveness on policy upgrade Influence in applied research for planning and on real spatial decision-making processes Great impacts on learning processes Issues related to power asymmetries Give visibility to communities | R1, R2, R4 R1, R2, R6 R6 R4, R3 R2, R4, R6 R5, R6 R2, R5, R6, R2, R5, R6 R3, R4 R2 R2, R6 R1, R2, R6 R1, R2, R4, R5, R6 R2, R4 R4 |
Domain impacted | |
Education Policy Territorial management Community Research | R2, R4, R5, R6 R3, R6 R1, R2, R4, R6 R1, R2, R3, R4, R6 R6, R2 |
Thematic Analysis Question 6 | Respondents |
---|---|
Key expertise for future architects | |
Critical thinking Dialogue with other disciplines Visualization of desirable transformation Management of complex processes Graphical and visual representation to bridge multiple interest Coping with uncertainty and flexibility Listening and observing | R1, R2, R4 R1, R2, R1, R2, R4, R6 R1, R2 R1, R2, R6 R4, R5 R4 |
Key responsibilities for future architects | |
Civic engagement and social role Role of facilitator Support communities in building local and international networks Support fund raising for community-based local transformation Contribute to increase awareness on climate change | R2, R4, R6 R2, R4 R4 R4 R1 |
Key responsibilities for educators | |
Build the dialogue with local context Vehiculate, co-produce and communicate knowledge with students and communities Bridge technical knowledge, natural sciences and social sciences Stimulate the understanding of broader implications of architecture practice on environment and society Stimulate to reshape solutions basing on specific circumstances and contextual variables | R2, R4, R3, R6 R4, R3 R1, R2, R6 R1 R3, R4 |
Thematic Analysis Question 7 | Respondents |
---|---|
Co-design, community-based architecture and planning Science-based architecture, climate-evidence Gamification Policy coordination, synergies between architecture and planning, multiscalarity, Nature-based solution and socio-ecological dynamics Interlinkages with larger societal challenges Cross-sectorial thinking Disruptive technologies Self-sufficiency and energy grids Public realm Rebalancing of humanities and science teachings in the curricula Creativity, dimension of doing, and manual skills Reading the spaces and territories through the lens of people Socio-environmental risks and preparedness Community-based research and action-research Reconceptualization of sustainability in architecture Disaster risk reduction and resilience Technological and digital innovation Role of governance, public authorities, and power structures | R2, R4, R3 R2, R6 R2 R2, R6 R2 R1 R1 R1 R1 R1 R3 R3 R3 R4 R4 R5 R5 R6 R6 |
CASE | Typologies of Activities | Students Engaged | Actors | Co-Produced Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | Field work Collective mapping Co-design Focus-groups Round-tables Interviews | Master students | Local Authorities Practitioners Local NGOs Social Garden users Local communities | On-line collective map |
C2 | Living Lab | Master and Ph.D. students | Local NGOs Local communities | |
Action-Research | ||||
C3 | Field work and survey Living Lab Action-Research Service learning Focus-groups Co-design and Self-construction | Bachelor and Master students | Local Authorities Practitioners Local NGOs Social Garden users Local communities | Documentary Self-constructed prototype |
C4 | Field work Co-design and Self-construction | Master students | Local and International NGOs | Self-constructed prototypes |
C5 | Field work Focus-groups | Bachelor and Master students | Local Authorities | |
Round-tables Interviews | Local communities |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Antonini, E.; Gaspari, J.; Visconti, C. Collaborative Learning Experiences in a Changing Environment: Innovative Educational Approaches in Architecture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168895
Antonini E, Gaspari J, Visconti C. Collaborative Learning Experiences in a Changing Environment: Innovative Educational Approaches in Architecture. Sustainability. 2021; 13(16):8895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168895
Chicago/Turabian StyleAntonini, Ernesto, Jacopo Gaspari, and Cristina Visconti. 2021. "Collaborative Learning Experiences in a Changing Environment: Innovative Educational Approaches in Architecture" Sustainability 13, no. 16: 8895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13168895