334
RISK
opportunities to be involved in real or Live Projects working with a real client on a real problem. This approach to architectural education is another example of simulating real practice problems in the student learning experience. Whether such offices, sometimes fuelled with ‘free’ manpower from students, have a competitive advantage over local selffunded practices is a moot point. We seek to make Live Projects in synergy with practices, building on a model currently in development in the MArch at Northumbria University, in which students add value by bringing additional research capability to a practice project and its processes. “Live projects are, if pedagogically understood and appropriately managed, a natural setting for a situated, critical and inclusive education” (Morrow and Brown, 2012). They require brave tutors who can support students through uncertainty and the considerable demands of real clients in real situations. Live projects can be assessed, as they are at Sheffield University, by the client, by the students and by the tutors; each form of assessment brings into relief the different value systems at work, a critical understanding of which is vital to operation as a professional (Butterworth and Care, 2014). The students in the AERU experiment took responsibility for a portion of their own selfassessment. It must be possible to develop a self-audit system that ensures that all students take responsibility for picking up the necessary skills along the way. Currently students fill in a PEDR log of their developing experiences. A new form of validation is needed that allows for the custom-build of learning in each individual student potentially through the use of digital mapping and which makes the full range of architectural expertise clear as a road map of potential. It is widely acknowledged that architecture students must learn to work collaboratively with one another, just as the industry itself needs to become more permeable. Parnell notes; “the development of empathy and cooperation among students of architecture is identified as most lacking in the traditional model of their education” (Parnell, 2003). Wherever possible students will work collaboratively and we will work on current best practice to develop appropriate assessment tools (Butterworth, 2014). Tutorials in small groups are nearly always better, they encourage the development of critical skills, collaboration, shared responsibility and shared learning. They also protect the student from the one to one contact which can for some people and some cultures be very uncomfortable. “One of the mistaken arguments for the retention of the crit is that it prepares for the real world – but at what cost? Answer: the development of alien vocabularies (spoken and drawn) understood only by architects, arrogance (attack being seen as the best form of defense in a crit), are the common traits, among others, which are established in schools of architecture and which then contribute to the formation of the character of the architect.” (Till, 2009) We argue that crits are based on a very outdated vision of the ‘real world’ – aggressive confrontation is no longer seen as good management and serves to perpetuate excluding and destructive leadership models - and should be reframed, in the manner of Nowotny, as collaborative research. The format of the review should be established and actively engaged with, by the students as part of their training in co-production and in the facilitation of events, a very key aspect of the architect’s role. As the Bartlett exercise showed, university structures have traditionally worked against experimental pedagogists, but things are rapidly changing as innovation incubators are starting up across the world. The ‘Sliperiet’ at Umeå University in Sweden is a beautiful example. Combining “maker spaces and labs” with “work space for the creative industries”