ARCHI21 is an EU-funded project which aims to get students to use 3D virtual immersive and Web 2.0 environments and to promote the potentialities of these environments in the fields of architecture and design. By adopting a CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) approach, ARCHI21 also seeks to facilitate language learning, while accompanying the process of competence building in architecture and design.
ARCHI21 involves six institutional partners in four countries: - Coordination : École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Paris Malaquais (ENSA-PM, France) ; - Centre international d’études pédagogiques (CIEP, France) ; - The Open University (OP, United Kingdom); - Univerza v Ljubljani – Fakulteta za Arhitekturo (UL-FA, Slovenia); - Aalborg Universitet (AAU, Denmark) ; - The University of Southampton (SO, United Kingdom).
A document producted by University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture Matevz Juvancic – Tadeja Zupancic – Tomaz Novljan – Spela Verovsek – Anja Jutraz
Table of contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………. p. 5
Space and media (2010/11): local learning action 1…………………….…p. 6
Space and media (2011/12): learning action 2 transnational ….….p. 11
Lighting in architecture (2011/12): learning action 2 trans.…..……p. 18
Lighting guerrilla workshop (2011/12): pilot……………………….………….p. 23
Introduction In this paper we will follow the development of the Architecture â€“ CLIL implementation at the Faculty of Architecture in Ljubljana in cooperation with other partners. The actions were implemented into four courses that happened during the ARCHI21 project. The two of them were part of the subject called Space & media in two consecutive years, the other two were incorporated in the subject called Lighting in architecture and workshop Lighting guerrilla. There were also other actions but to showcase the development and upgrades, these four are the most representative ones. The ARCHI21 project started sometime after the study year has begun and a quick solution was needed to implement the first action into the already running courses. The Space & media and Lighting in architecture were chosen at Ljubljanaâ€™s faculty of architecture due to their adaptability of study work and the broad thematic frames that can accommodate different (project) specific topics. They usually also attract exchange students whose first language is not Slovene, which was an added bonus because of the aims of the project, namely learning of languages (other than normally used) through the architectural content.
Space and media (2010/11): local learning action 1 The Faculty of Architecture of the University of Ljubljana started an intensive introduction of the ARCHI21 CLIL activities in the framework of the content focus elective course entitled Space and Media. The course represents an integral part of the winter semester activities within the single masters study programme in architecture (meetings: two hours a week / 3 ECTS student workload). The ARCHI21 CLIL activities preparation period started during the intermediate stages of the course and they were implemented during the presentation phases of the course. The main topics of the course – in general – were to enhance student’s knowledge and skills related to: cognitive processes in architectural, urban and landscape space as multimedia space; arts and sciences of cognitive spatial processes; historical overview of ideas about cognitive space, conceptual and experiential space, ideal and real space, information and space, medial of learning and interpreting space (material and immaterial, existent and possible), factors of influence of the creative process of spatial design: natural, social, cultural, technological; use of media and technology in spatial management processes; translation of manifestative ‘languages’ of architectural environments; managing physical and virtual space based on perception; multimedia representation techniques in different communication.
Figure 1 - face to face (f2f) sessions and students’ work presentation with content teachers, language mediators and invited critics present (Space and Media, 2010/11)
There were 10 Erasmus students engaged in the course with 4 teachers in architecture, 1 mediator of Slovene and 1 of English language. Students were 21-25 years old, from the 3th to the 5th year of studies, the majority from the 4th year. Their ‘online’ literacy was at the average level. No Second Life enthusiast was ‘discovered’. The majority of students were not even interested in SL in-world settings. Starting language level of students: English: from low to intermediate (from: having difficulties to express themselves and their ideas to fluent speakers
but though intermediate writers); Slovene: from zero (=a few words such as ‘hello’ and ‘thanks’) to low (short phrases, limited vocabulary; low level of grammar). Non-native English learners and teachers, native and non-native Slovene learners and teachers (non-native majority) were involved. The need to improve English proficiency of all staff and students, as the main communication language, though highly supported by visual communication, was obvious. Slovene words and phrases were seen as a potential for a more culturally colourful communication, not as the main communication ‘platform’. The whole 2010/2011 course contents was ‘coloured’ by the theme of fragile and sensitive architecture. Students of architecture were asked to: 1. Interpret the word 'fragility' by themselves, from their own previous knowledge and experiences; 2. Define 'fragility in architecture' / 'architectural fragility'... and 3. Design a concrete proposal related to the 'eCAADe 2011' conference venue needs to communicate the idea of 'fragility' to the conference’s international participants. The Space and Media course activities, in general, were based on the initial discussion with the course participants describing their motivation to join the course. Each session was organized as a discussion session, where the discussion material was prepared in advance. Inputs from all staff and students were combined to answer the specific initial contents-related course questions. At the process of design proposal developments, all the staff and students discussed both the solutions proposed and the presentations used. When the CLIL approach was emphasized at the intermediate stage of the course, the language facilitators joined the course: first with their written courseware, prepared in advance, after the discussion with the content staff, then f2f, at the final stage with their written and recorded courseware (tools used: Audacity for recordings and postproduction, html+java for the user interface (link: http://predmet.fa.uni-lj.si/mmprostor/archi21/izgovorjava/archi21_slo_en_expressions.html).
Figure 2 – Project for eCAADe conference venue design: ‘coffee break room’: reflections on fragility and reuse of existing furniture, final presentation (student D. Lopez, Space and Media, 2010/11)
The experience shows, that the second language (2l) English was mainly used in all the cases. The role of the 2l Slovene differed in relation to the 2l English fluency level. In the cases of
low and intermediate 2l English level, 2l Slovene becomes a communication ‘breaker’, disrupting the flow. However, where higher levels of the 2l English fluency were achieved, the 2l Slovene became a communication stimulator, enhancer and emphasizer, especially in combination with first language of students: Catalan, Basque, Portuguese. The sounds of the term ‘fragility’ in different languages became stimulators of creativity through its architectural interpretations... In the cases of Czech and Macedonian, the role of the 2l Slovene was somewhere in between: Slovene and Czech ‘sound’ familiar and the language similarities encouraged students to use Slovene at a level of complexity not understandable to others; in the case of the Macedonian the problem was the student's low confidence in the architectural ideas and concepts he 'defended', not the confidence in his language skills.
Figure 3 – Project for eCAADe conference venue design: ‘coffee break room’: reflections on fragility and transmission of the idea to conference participants through interior design (students A. Riera Rull & D. Francisco, Space and Media, 2010/11)
There were some clear lessons identified in the Ljubljana case-course:
In the process of f2f interaction, visual language was the most important integrator of all the 'languages' employed; it enabled 'going beyond' the difficulties deriving from the diversity of the literacy levels in relation to English and Slovene languages.
During the introduction of Slovene as the second 2l a very high level of pressure on both staff and students was felt during the implementation phase, though the actions were planned in advance - especially in the cases of low level first 2l-English.
Learning Slovene is more an excursion into the exotics than an actual need of students, as long as it is fun. Fun stops when the real need to express themselves appeared, when they needed to communicate their ideas about 'their' architecture. The aim to improve the most basic literacy in Slovene is questionable when it breaks the content related communication, which needs higher levels of communication skills.
The questions about how to improve student's technical skills aimed to dwell in-world remained open.
The main aim of the course to achieve a higher level of knowledge and understanding of the architectural topic concerned was remaining the main focus of the course and it was agreed it deserves the limelight despite the secondary focus on communication and technical skills.
The Space and Media course was initially executed in English, while the majority of the participants were foreign Erasmus students. According to the participants attending this course in recent years we can claim the execution of the course in English encouraged foreign students to attend the course. English language enabled the essential communication, understanding and realization of the course tasks and further more enable the participants’ to gain the course credits. On the contrary, execution in English seems to divert Slovenian students from attending it, while it brought less ease in communication and forced them to use second language, which they might not be totally comfortable with.
In terms of the social interaction and our observation of the course participants the f2f mode was suitable. The established and launched questionnaire assisted in becoming acquainted with the existent language skills (English and Slovene language) of the course participants as well as with their wishes/expectations concerning the coupling of the language and architecture learning within the Space and Media course. It furthermore enabled us to compare the students’ self-estimated level of language skills with the actual state of affairs (manifested at the group discussions and the course final presentations).
10 foreign students were surveyed of which 3 were Portuguese, 3 were from Spain, 2 were coming from Czech Republic and one from Macedonia. All of them were relatively fluent in English although only 2 of them had taken a special English course (to revise grammar and vocabulary) before coming to Slovenia. The majority also indicated a readiness to improve the specific architectural vocabulary and useful phrases which needed in a professional architectural work. In most cases they wanted to improve English skills to gain technical words, to be able to express their ideas precisely and be able to read English professional and scientific literature. They considered that as an important investment for further work within home or foreign countries.
Slovenian language did not seem to represent a serious challenge only to the participants that were already familiar with it (participants from Macedonia, and Czech Republic). Due to the similarities of Slovenian language and their mother tongue, it was easier for them to pronounce and memorize the words. In their case (especially the participant from Macedonia, who already speaks Slovenian relatively fluently), Slovenian language represented a challenge within realistic reach (in terms of successful achievement of a basic conversation level), whereas in the case of Portuguese and Spanish speaking participants, the discrepancy between Slavic and Romanic language seems to be more hindering.
Moreover, Portuguese and Spanish speaking participants expressed doubts on reasonableness of learning Slovenian language actively. However, they all agreed on the great employability of the basic and selected technical Slovenian vocabulary for a supplementary use in expressing architectural ideas as well as to facilitate their common everyday communication during their stay in Slovenia.
As a result of language facilitators’ efforts and the rest of archi21 FA team, the typical expressions for the use of presenting and defending architectural projects have been incorporated in a web page, combining the written terms in Slovene and English as well as their audible pronunciation. The expressions have been recorded as one session than cut into segments, compressed for speed (internet) and compiled into a html page with direct links to individual expressions that when clicked produced an English and Slovene audible pronunciation.
The motivation for content based language learning was quite high but the substantial progress in language learning terms was not to be expected – learning of terms and some phrases and their use in SI-ENG mix was viable, syntax and sentences when presenting or defending the architectural project were beyond the timeframe of the course, motivation of students and the standards required to pass the subject. Students were reluctant to use tools that were seen as too much of a compromise between functionalities needed for architectural design and other features, they hold for additional but not essential (communication).
Figure 4 – Project for eCAADe conference venue design: ‘coffee break room’: reflections on fragility and transmission of the idea to conference participants through use of moveable and recyclable materials (students A. Cmielova & A. Jung, Space and Media, 2010/11)
Space and media (2011/12): learning action 2 transnational For the action 2 three main decisions on the course setting were made: 1. The CLIL will be integrated from the beginning, 2. We will use pervasive digital environment to work in/on and 3. We will team up and collaborate long-distance with the Paris Malaquis faculty of architecture (ENSAPM). All three decisions were reflected in careful planning and much more coordination between the participants involved. The setting and general aims of the course have remained the same although much more planning went into the adaption to the ARCHI21 aims and objectives. The crucial 3 decisions were set into motion right from the start of the subject, which at the beginning – before the tasks and scope of work have been explained in details – sported numerous candidates, but their number soon diminished. It has to be noted that multiplication of fields where the knowledge and skills will need to be upgraded (architecture, communication, presentation, in-world building and several languages) influences the number of dropouts as the task becomes too demanding and work intensive for the gain of only 3 ECTS. At the end there were 5 students who went through the whole process, 2 Slovene students and 3 Erasmus students.
Figure 5 – Republic square in (virtual) formation: the building process of the 3D model of the site in Second Life (Space and Media, 2011/12)
Again, the theme of the course was ‘fragility’ in urban design and course contents ‘coloured’ by the urban design problem of transforming the Republic Square in Ljubljana
(Slovenia) to more user friendly place. Students of architecture were asked to: 1. interpret the word 'fragility' by themselves, from their own previous knowledge and experiences; 2. define 'fragility in architecture' / 'architectural fragility'...; 3. Attend Building class in Second Life; 4. Model the digital replica of the site in Second life; 5. Prepare the intermediate presentation in SL; 6. Prepare final presentation f2f and in GoToMeeting. For the purpose of logistics and multiplication of the ARCHI21 results and benefits some of the actions of this course were combined with the course Lighting in architecture (described in the next chapter), taught by different teacher but essentially being part of the same initiative and tightly connected to Space and Media process as well. Both 2l English and 2l Slovene were introduced at the ‘adjunct CLIL’ level. Language teachers were involved before the study presentation phase, while the content teacher’s languages were: 1l – Slovene and 2l English. The learners were encouraged to use both English and Slovene during the case-study presentation phase, they were also encouraged to write the scripts for intermediate and final presentations in advance, and language teachers had intensive sessions with them as well as corrected their scripts prior to their presentations.
Figure 6 – 3D building class in SL with students, mediators and teachers attendingsite in Second Life (Space and Media and AAU ‘3D building teacher’ – yellow helmet – Scott Chase, 2011/12)
The transnational setting brought some logistic and scheduling problems. Ecole Nationale superieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais and Faculty of architecture in Ljubljana do not have similar scheduling of classes or dedicated facilities available thus the alternative time had to be found for collaborating crit sessions. The theme of fragility permeated both initiatives in Paris and Ljubljana, although the site/location of the projects differed in scope, size and plan. With so much difference it has been a challenge to establish a format that would bring the work and presentations in sync and it is for this particular reason that much has been experimented with suitable communication platforms. Ljubljana decided on the SL and later GoToMeeting, Paris on the Knovio and the common Wiki later on, both relied also heavily on Skype and f2f local meetings.
Figure 7 – Blended (f2f and Skype) language intensive session with students, teachers and mediators (Space and Media, 2011/12)
The learning environment in Ljubljana thus combined usual face-to-face interactions with 2d language-related courseware (Slovene/English/French terms about fragility and terms related to presentation of basic architectural ideas) and 3d SL environment with 3d immersive worlds used mainly but not solely for communication. For the preparation of the intermediate and final presentations the students still used conventional tools they use in their everyday practice (Autocad, Sketchup, etc for 3D; Photoshop, Powerpoint, Indesign, etc for 2D graphics and slides). The SL has also not been used for collaboration (except when building the in-world 3D model of the site), as the course and task were not of that nature. Again, the experience shows, that the 2l English was the main language of communication in all the cases, but still the visual language prevailed and the spoken word was usually only the second language compared to visual expressions. On many occasions in the presentations of projects the visual language was the message carrier when the language skill or sound quality diminished. There are some clear lessons identified in the Ljubljana case-course:
In the process of f2f interaction, visual language is the most important integrator of all the 'languages' employed; it enables 'going beyond' the difficulties deriving from the diversity of the literacy levels in relation to English and Slovene languages.
during the introduction of Slovene as the 2l a very high level of pressure on both staff and students was felt during the implementation phase, though the actions were planned in advance - especially in the cases of low level 2l English.
learning Slovene was more taking of an opportunity than an actual need of students than and actual need of students, as long as it is fun. Fun stops when the real need to express themselves appeared…, when they need to communicate their ideas about 'their' architecture. The aim to improve the most basic literacy in Slovene is questionable when it breaks the content related communication, which needs higher levels of communication skills. The question about how to introduce additional study aims to improve student's
technical skills aimed to dwell in-worlds is still open. The main aim of the course to achieve a higher level of knowledge and understanding of the architectural topic concerned should still remain the main focus of the course and it cannot be fully replaced by the focus to communication and technical skills.
Figure 8 – Intermediate presentations of student work in SL with students, teachers and mediators (Space and Media, 2011/12)
The use of digital tools, especially 3D in-world building raised the bar in the existing digital literacy of students. The learning curve in this aspect was very steep for them and not always productive in terms of architectural learning. The in-world induction course was very valuable in this aspect enabling social interaction; it was available at the beginning of the space and media local action.
Even more valuable has been the 3D Building in-world course for students and teachers provided by the AAU
problem of the diversity of working dynamics of staff and students involved: synchronizing actions across institutions to achieve common student-teacher meeting sessions is a daunting task – sometimes harder to achieve than CLIL itself
the main hindrance of designing and modelling 3D objects in SL still appears to be the very different purpose and finial use of those objects comparing to conventional designing programs used in architecture. While the SL designing practice tend to lower the level of detail used in forms and textures to the extent that is adequate to the visual perception of the SL users (due to the higher SL efficiency - “Why bother to compute all the details of objects when they cannot be visible anyway?”), the conventional design tools aim at providing the designer with the ability to establish highly detailed 2d and 3d models which are employed and needed in architectural professional work. The difference in designing principles (stemming from the purpose of 3D designing and modelling) between SL and conventional architectural practice appears to dissuade the architecturally profiled students from using SL as a direct tool for 3D modelling, while the format and attributes of the objects do not enable
quick and simple additional corrections, exportation to other designing programs or use of objects for other purposes. Such weakness in terms of architectural practice can represent the duplication of work, time, energy etc., thus a different stimulation/motivation for students is to be considered in advance
the balance between contents workload and additional burden of learning the language is hard to achieve – students get focused on the contents and need to be constantly reminded to work on the language as well
Figure 9 – Students presenting their work in Knovio, with prerecorded presentation, sound and video (Design Studio ENSAPM, 2011/12)
The motivation for content based language learning is quite high but the substantial progress in language learning terms is not to be expected – learning of terms and some phrases and their use in SI-ENG-FR mix is viable, syntax and sentences when presenting or defending the architectural project were beyond the timeframe of the course, motivation of students and the standards required to pass the subject. We also consider it irrational (in terms of time, effort, energy and motivation needed) to demand the consistent use of Slovene language in terms of the grammar, language syntax and use of the sentence sequences, while the main contribution of Slovenian language to convey the architectural ideas can be reached through the use of separate words and phrases as an assistance to find most subtle meanings and precise connotations of the communicated contents.
Combining three languages in the presentation is sometimes tricky but can be achieved through spoken and written means (i.e. speaking in English slides with Slovene/French captions). Achieving multilingual discussion after presentations is difficult – using English as the common language to express ones’ opinions with Slovene expressions as emphasis proved to be the best solution.
The SL experience, although not the most effective tool to learn and design architecture, has shown itself as useful to introduce common goal of building 3D model of the site that put the segmented building experiences in building class to integrated use. The students also learned to use SL as the presentation, gathering and communication platform.
For the purposes of presentations and recording of sessions GoToMeeting proved to be effective and time efficient. However trying to present 3D model in an immersive environment is not an option in the mentioned software.
Figure 10 – Final presentations: Republic square Ljubljana, new urban design proposal (A. Jerkovic, GoToMeeting, Space and Media, 2011/12)
Figure 11 – Final presentations: Republic square Ljubljana, new urban design proposal (L. Bellatorre & A. Radsel, GoToMeeting, Space and Media, 2011/12)
Figure 12 â€“ Final presentations: Republic square Ljubljana, new urban design proposal (L. Cabot & L. Lopez, GoToMeeting, Space and Media, 2011/12)
Lighting in architecture (2011/12): learning action 2 transnational Much of the stated in the previous chapter applies also in this one. The 3 crucial decisions mentioned before were also implemented in this course and the setting has been very similar but with different teachers as the leader and different students. 5 students participated in this course, 2 Slovene and 1 foreign but regular student at our faculty (French, non-Slovene speaker) and 2 Erasmus students. The main topics of the course – in general – were:
to enhance student’s knowledge and skills related to the light as a natural phenomenon which in various manners affects the perception of our environment, architecture and thus our daily life in general;
to be acquainted with basic lighting techniques well as with the effects these techniques have on the perception of different architectonic ambiences;
to be acquainted with basic light sources and their properties, with photometric quantities and with the calculation of the illumination in interior and exterior;
to understand why the term Luminous Ambience is important for designing proper lighting in contemporary as well as in historic urban areas. The general theme of architectural ‘fragility’ permeated this class also, however the
emphasis has been made on the fragility of light and lighting aspects of the Republic square in Ljubljana. For the purposed of comparison and logistics of all initiatives the same site in Ljubljana has been selected as well as the same (digital) tools and platforms for the design, collaboration and presentation. Although some of the f2f sessions were separated from Space and media course, the actions with ENSAPM collaborations were synced and both courses at that time merged and combined resources, teachers, students and efforts. CLIL incorporation settings and intensive language sessions were shared among both courses. Nowadays a lot of architectural design activities are conducted as computer simulations (technical plans, renders, animations, colour studies etc.). These simulations with already stunning reality in displaying materials, light and shadow are then shared among architects, investors, customers to supply them with as much data as possible of their future edifices and urban arrangements. However, all these high-resolution images are still prepared in advance and displayed as (set of) pictures on a computer screen or they are printed on a flat surface. A designer as well as the potential customer so still explain and observe these images ‘from aside’.
In the field of lighting we can already witness vast improvements regarding high fidelity of lighting effects simulation but still, light is something that is highly dynamic and that comes from different directions simultaneously. Thus an “ordinary” render, as good as it may be, cannot provide us with enough information about a complex lighting design for example, any more. Immersive 3D virtual environments, as Second Life is, can temporarily close the gap between more or less passive observation and active participation within the design process. Some parallels can be pulled here with the architectural education, where the architecture students are not just presenters of their design projects but are also our real–time guides “through” their virtual arrangements.
Figure 13 – Republic square Ljubljana, proposal for the lighting (simulation in Second Life) emphasizing the fragility of the space – light reflecting the remains of the roman building buried underground (N. Plibersek, Q. Bellancourt, K. Vavpotic, L. Ritonja, P. Charny Brunet, Lighting in Architecture, 2011/12)
Students were given a task to illuminate the should-be-distinguished urban area in the centre of Ljubljana. The Republic square is a plateau (approx. 100 by 100 meters) and surrounded with four very different ambiences. The task was to design at least three different lighting ambiences that would correspond or emphasize different functions in these three areas. Our mixed group of students consisted of three French-speaking and two Slovenespeaking students. This “mixture” proved to be very convenient for following reasons: the three French speaking students were very skilled in Second Life but quite unfamiliar with the site and the two Slovene speaking students were not so fluent in Second Life but very familiar with the site. So the constant communication between them was inevitable.
Figure 14 – Republic square Ljubljana, proposal for the lighting (simulation in Second Life, sketches) emphasizing the fragility of the space – illumination of the ‘tree pots’ (N. Plibersek, Q. Bellancourt, K. Vavpotic, L. Ritonja, P. Charny Brunet, Lighting in Architecture, 2011/12)
The main communication language between them was English (the official language of the SL interface is English as well) so they all had some benefit of that. In the intermediate stage of the workshop we started to encourage them to teach each other French and Slovene expressions at least for most frequently used English words. The fact that they were two pleasant Slovene girls and three pleasant French boys helped in the learning process. For the final presentation that has been conducted in real-time SL they taught each other, with the help of our language mediators, some basic expressions from lighting terminology in both, Slovene and French. At the beginning the building class from all students from courses Space and media and Lighting in architecture was prepared (joined sessions), and there was also special class on lighting in SL for students from Lighting in architecture (run by Scott Chase, AAU). Simultaneously, lighting abilities of SL immersive environment was tested and the lessons learned would be as follows:
To every object built in SL can be assigned a function of a luminary which was productive, taking into account the fact that LED light sources are at the moment among the most promising light sources because of their small dimensions too. They can be attached almost everywhere
Those interested, also general SL public, could observe the design process in SL in realtime (as avatars). An ‘online’ help (prof. Scott Chase as Scooter Gaudio) was available and very helpful during the experimentation
Some upgrade regarding lighting possibilities in SL is badly needed; various electrical light sources and reflectance from materials, more accurate shadows, sunlight and nocturnal settings of the ambience are some of the issues that have to be addressed in future – if SL is to be used as a learning environment for lighting in architecture with all its advantages (and disadvantages) of a virtual, digital, immersive, where-everything-is-possible world is to survive.
Figure 15 – Students showing the table of expressions used during the final presentation of their Light in architecture project (N. Plibersek, Q. Bellancourt, K. Vavpotic, L. Ritonja, P. Charny Brunet, Lighting in Architecture, 2011/12)
Additionally, a set of hardware standards (and other standards: linguistic, behavioural etc.) will be necessary if we want that SL will become a “remote” global classroom where traditional ways of teaching in specially designed and built (and more and more “expensive”) educational buildings will give way to more advanced techniques, with constant software updates and more and more new more or less necessary gadgets of all kinds. So the majority of the young person’s time available for learning will be spent for the personalization with all that novelties and less and less time will be left for the main topic – the content learning? The experiment/course and the whole ARCHI 21 project pointed out some advantages as well as disadvantages of this kind of learning and teaching in the (not so distant) future when the money spent for the public education is (will be) treated as wasted and broad general education maybe even (God forbid!) undesirable. What can we learn from William Gibson’s Neuromancer?
Figure 16 – Second Life moding and simulation – Republic Square lighting for different occasions, the user can switch between different lighting ‘moods’ (Lighting in Architecture, 2011/12)
Lighting guerrilla workshop (2011/12): pilot The fourth action built on all previous experiences trying to develop and extend the positive ones while avoiding all the issues of the challenging lessons learned. The first challenge came in the form of the curricula and study schedule with only the main subjects scheduled into the summer semester. The characteristics of the main subjects make them unfavourable for experimental or ARCHI21 project related use due to the sheer mass of students attending and their inflexibility to accommodate additional workload and skill acquisition into their already packed agendas. The rest of the partners faced very similar obstacles. It was thus decided that the form of a workshop would be the most appropriate for encompassing pilot action, while at the same time also attracting the most enthusiastic and hardworking students that were prepared to go beyond the usual curricular workshop.
Figure 17 â€“ Blended sessions logistics â€“ invited critic Or Ettlinger inquires about the design f2f and passes the microphone to student to answer; teachers, mediators, other invited critics and students are listening in the auditorium and also in remote locations (Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
The workshop Lighting Guerrilla was part of the project Lighting Guerrilla (light objects and installation in public and gallery space, (interactive) projections, film, dance, actions, workshops), which is turning on the lights in different public spaces (parks, streets, galleries, cultural centers). The topic in 2011/12 was Movement: the artists explored the interaction between movement and light in relation to space and also to the spectator as a co-creator (more: http://www.svetlobnagverila.net/). The programme selector, main coordinator of the project Lighting Guerrilla is Katerina MiroviÄ‡. The workshop was implemented at the Faculty of architecture in the period between 7. May and 8. June 2012 with weekly f2f and online sessions every Monday from 18.00 to 20.00. There were also individual meetings between one group and teachers, where the students got additional comments, advices. Students were divided into three
groups (4-5 students), they prepared three different design proposals, and at the end the winning proposal was actually built with all hands available. There were two stages of the workshop: 1. designing: analysis of the site, concept and location, design proposals; 2. implementation: lighting installation on the site (real-life 1:1 installation) or in virtual life (walkthrough the 3D model).
Figure 18 – Physical models of the proposals for the bridge lighting installation (Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
There were two intermediate presentations / crit-sessions:
the students presented the design proposal (implementation phase: 2D plans, 3D models, light simulation; cost estimate, list of used materials etc.), invited critics provided comments; the setting has been f2f at the Faculty of Architecture in Ljubljana in combination with the GoToMeeting with invited critics.
detail design proposal (organization of the final installation, contact to external production management, testing materials, prototyping etc.) – the invited critics evaluated all three proposals and chose one, which was to be built in real-life (other two proposals were built in virtual form – the students prepared walk-through the 3D model); again f2f for Slovene students and teachers in GoToMeeting for invited critics.
Figure 19 – One of the final proposals for the bridge lighting installation - the winning group would have received a budget of 1000 EUR for the real materialization of their proposal (Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
Final result of the workshop was composed of two parts: 1. presentation of the concept, visual material and text (Slovene/English/French expressions), 2. video - walk through (3D model or real model), visual material and voice (English). Students used the platform for communication between different groups of students and teachers at home institution: http://ucilnica1112.fgg.uni-lj.si/. It was used for exchange of data; the mentors also monitored the partial tasks and gave some additional comments/advices.
Figure 20 – Movement created through the flow of sheets ‘scattered’ in space and illuminated from below. (A.Hlastec, T. Dobrilovic, P. Mendusic, N. Lukin, G. Cimperman, Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
In the workshop Lighting Guerrilla the architectural students prepared project proposal for lighting for the wooden bridge between Three bridges and Shoemakers bridge in Ljubljana. Students worked together in small groups, 4 or 5 students (all Slovene students). They used English (2l) as communication language for presentations, and when they lacked English expressions or wanted to emphasize some notions, they used Slovene words (1l). Majority of students had zero level of the 2l French language and usage of French language was not mandatory. However, some students used French language in their final presentations (only in writing). Some basic Slovene/English/French dictionary of architectural phrases as well as some communication phrases were prepared in advance by our language interprets, e.g. Tadeja Kilar and Aleksandra Zerjav. They were given to students in advance to prepare their presentations and to use it in discussions. Students were also encouraged to write scripts for intermediate and final presentation, and language mediators helped them to improve their language skills (virtual communication – e-mail, Skype … - between students and language mediators before the presentations).
Figure 21 – Visualization of the previous idea in daylight and at night – fragility, light and movement (A.Hlastec, T. Dobrilovic, P. Mendusic, N. Lukin, G. Cimperman, Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
The group experience shows, that the 2l English was the main language in all the cases. Majority of students in this workshop had intermediate level of the 2l English fluency and they did not have problems to use it for the presentation. They used Slovene words when they did not know the right English expression or to emphasize specific notion or relation. The results of the project were the final ppt/pdf presentations and videos given by the students, which were prepared in Slovene, French and in English language. We have tried to implement the CLIL approach at different stages of the course. The selected group realized and built their proposal in real life, other two groups built appropriate 3D models and visualizations. There are some clear lessons identified in the Ljubljana case-course:
In the process of f2f interaction, visual language was the most important integrator of all the 'languages' employed; it enabled 'going beyond' the difficulties deriving from the diversity of the literacy levels in relation to English/Slovene/French languages.
Learning English was the motivational factor for Slovene students. The main aim of the course to achieve a higher level of knowledge and understanding of the architectural topic concerned still remained as the main focus of the course and it was not fully replaced by the focus to linguistic, communication and technical skills.
Learning French was more taking of an opportunity than an actual need of students. The students did not really found the reason to use French expressions, although we had French invited critics and observers, they have also spoken English and students could not defend their projects in French due to the low level of French fluency.
Figure 22 – The visualization of the winning proposal of the illuminated translucent and textile sheets (K. Istenic, A. Jericevic, S. Stimac, M. Toplisek, N. Zupancic, Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
It would be good to have mixed groups of students and teachers/tutors from different institutions working on the same site and same tasks – for language mix and CLIL integration – but the different dynamics of schools and student engagement do not always (and in this case did not) permit that.
The timing of the pilot has been unfortunate and should be chosen differently next time – however time constraints of project duration and study year dynamics do not allow ideal scheduling of activities.
There were fewer lessons learned because of the experiences gained in previous actions. It has to be noted that the last action has been the smoothest flowing one in terms of workflow, groupwork arrangement, communication, technical issues, etc.
Figure 23 – The installation of the winning proposal over the wooden bridge and Ljubljanica river (K. Istenic, A. Jericevic, S. Stimac, M. Toplisek, N. Zupancic, Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
Figure 24 â€“ The installation of the winning proposal over the wooden bridge and Ljubljanica river â€“ impressions and passers-by fascination with the project (K. Istenic, A. Jericevic, S. Stimac, M. Toplisek, N. Zupancic, Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
Conclusion The responses of learners and their teachers to CLIL-architecture integration have been positive. While not surveyed statistically, the qualitative responses from teachers emphasized benefits of spicing up the topics, widening the architectural vocabulary and adding cultural richness through the use of other languages and expressions. They also stated the disadvantages: the additional burden and learning for the teachers themselves, allocating the time and attention from contents to language and taking care of their interplay add the complexity to- and demand on- their job. While students did not talk about disadvantages, during their work, they un/intentionally focused to the contents â€“ architecture â€“ more, sometimes forgetting or ignoring the language aspect and they had to be reminded by the teachers to bring some of their attention back to the language. Based on the experience described above it can be said, the integration does not happen naturally or effortlessly on this (higher) level of education. It has to be nurtured and focused upon constantly. With specialized tools, developed for CLIL-architecture purposes, such as learning objects (http://archi21.eu/resources/learning-objects/), the integration can be helped and can happen on multiple levels from the start; however the hindrance of such tools is the very same specialization, the need to prepare them on case to case basis and time they take to prepare. It seems that architecture and urban design as visually oriented fields are in a better position to bridge the language - in-field expertise divide, occasionally resorting to the different, visual language when faced with an obstacle in communication. In this way they can be beneficial to learning English and wide variety of other languages on the go and in parallel while learning and gaining expertise for the profession (learning by doing or learning while doing). The comparison of the expressions and notions in different languages also brings new meaning, new insights and fresh discussions into the architectural (dis-) courses.