DYNAMICS-AKTION. PEDAGOGICAL DYNAMICS PROPOSAL, USEFUL FOR DESIGN STUDIO
TEACHING AND BEYOND
dynamics-aktion- Pedagogical dynamics
proposal, useful for Design Studio teaching and beyond
Eneko Besa 1
1Teacher at I Darte, Basque School of
Art and Higher School of Design, Spain
ABSTRACT
This paper [1], [2]is a continuation and a complement to the
previous paper: #eindakoa#. (what we’ve done) A pedagogical method of Interior Design
Projects’ method.[3]
That paper
developed a pedagogical method of design throughout a full course at a
project Design Studio.
This paper
extends that previous paper and develops its pedagogical approach through a
series of pedagogical dynamics and strategies, defined on a more precise and
detailed scale.
Each dynamic
is artistically designed, almost like an action, to create a ‘learning event’
and teach the content of Design Studio through experience.
These dynamics
are inspiring, to such an extent that they can be transferred to any
discipline. However, this article includes a specific theoretical support: a
discussion and a comparative contrast with different models of the
pedagogical method of the architectural project Design Studio.
The first half
of the dynamics are developed to enrich a conventional class, prior to the
Covid-19 pandemic. The second half of the dynamics are developed in response
to the Covid-19 situation. They creatively exploit the possibilities of
different platforms for online teaching.
With the
license CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download,
reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work
must be properly attributed to its author.
Keywords: Dynamic, Pedagogy, Design Studio Teaching, Evaluation
1. INTRODUCTION
This
paper does not need an introduction beyond the direct presentation of the
dynamics. They are shown as they are, starting with some descriptive images and
the instructions for their development.
This
narrative shows by itself the value of these pedagogical these dynamics of
design pedagogy which, already in their very conception, are ‘designed actions’
or even ‘design in action’, and they constitute what we could call ‘educational
performances’ within the classroom.
The
paper completes the description of each dynamic with the definition of the
objectives, as well as with scientific research and discussion, thus specifying
the content and intrinsic values, and describing the deep scope that these
dynamics can have despite their simplicity or their apparent naivety.
Figure 1
Figure
1
Some of
the dynamics (tear out, tectonic materials, sprint-projecting) were already
mentioned in the narrative descriptions of the previous paper. Other dynamics
are new, and, regarding their conception, it is necessary to appreciate the
influence of IRALE300, a Basque language training course, during autumn 2019 in
Vitoria-Gasteiz.[4]The
pedagogical experiences that the author experienced in that course are not
directly transferable to a design course, since they were linguistic
pedagogies. However, the dynamism and sense of everything received in that
course has been a source of inspiration and an exciting push to develop new
dynamics like those proposed here.
It is
also necessary to thank the IRALE consultation service (kontsulta zerbitzua)
for the impeccable work they have done reviewing almost all the Basque
translations used in the course, as well as the generosity they have shown in
making a linguistic revision of this article (Spanish version).
Without
further delay, here there are the dynamics.
Table 1
Table 1 Reconstructing the rubric /
Reconstruyendo la rúbrica / Errubrika berreraikitzen
Context
This dynamic is carried out just when we start the first exercise once
its statement has been explained.
Procedure
p1
We take the
rubric of a typical exercise.
p2
We delete the
dividing lines, and we print it.
p3
We trim it with
the guillotine, taking into account its content and also the difficulty that
making smaller pieces entails, separating certain contents, etc.
p4
We divide the students
into groups of 4 or 5 and give them the dissected rubric.
p5
Students
reconstruct the rubric and take a photo of their reconstruction proposal.
p6
They
autocorrect themselves based on the answer that can be found on the blog of
the subject.
p7
We all discuss
the different solutions and variables that have appeared.
p8
From the
comments of the students, we discuss which ones may be admissible, and we
decide upon a new evaluation rubric.
Materials
m1
Printed rubric.
m2
Guillotine or scissors.
m3
Students’ phones to take pictures of
their solutions.
m4
Mobile device or computer to check the
solution on the blog.
Space
e1
An arrangement of tables in groups to
carry out group work.
e2
Tables’
arrangement that allows a subsequent dialogue without needing much movement,
avoiding distractions.
Timing
5’
5 minutes to explain the activity.
25’
25 minutes for students to reconstruct
the rubric.
20’
20 minutes for self-correction.
5’
5 minutes break.
50’
50 minutes to discuss different versions.
Objectives
obj1
Reading (something unusual nowadays).
obj2
Personally, and actively integrating the
contents and, above all, the structure of the rubric.
obj3
Interpreting and evaluating their own
solution.
obj4
Discussing and
formulating alternative proposals to the teacher’s rubric.
obj5
Actively participating
in the criteria by which they will be evaluated.
Discussion
As obj4 and
obj5 point out, from the beginning of the course, this approach recreates a
participatory and democratic design studio (hooks, 2021:30), to the point
that a shared discussion can reconfigure the teacher’s rubric. This
integrates Thomas A. Dutton’s deconstructive and critical approaches of the
‘hidden curriculum’ that can be seen in the work by Dutton (1987).
However, as it
is possible to find hidden intentions in the curriculum, the students also
bring their unconscious prejudices with them. And so, without entering into
deeper discussions, but somehow echoing the theory of the primal horde
pointed out by Freud (1913-14:143-148), it is common for students, from the
first moment something is presented, to sound out the limits and weaknesses
that would make the authority ‘fall’.
Anyone involved
in education experiences this, especially if the students are offered an
evaluation rubric. This is especially evident in the first few days of class,
a key moment in which all parties are measuring their strengths. In fact,
from this psychoanalytical approach, what students appreciate most is to have
an authority in front of them who does not knuckle under their unconscious
attempts to overthrow him/her.
Therefore, the
main point is to be able to maintain a dialogue capable of integrating and
welcoming the conscious movement, as well as the unconscious motivations. In
this way, power is no longer understood as much as a hierarchical structure
to maintain or overthrow, but rather as the mutual projection of all
unconscious states or hidden curricula. Thus, the work of the teacher will
consist in exploring the ultimate motivations of both, the teachers
themselves and the students, to achieve the maximum integration of everyone
involved and all possible situations.
In this manner,
we understand the design studio through the acceptance of the mutual transfer
and countertransference that occurs between teacher and student. These are
concepts that are close to the psychoanalytic field that we also find in
Ochsner’s study (2000), a study that approximates the Design Studio to the
therapist-patient relationship.
In this case,
this deep interaction begins right from the first day of class with a dynamic
in which the teacher dares to offer a rubric that is open to reconstruction.
Thus, we avoid tedious situations of reading a technical document, such as a
quasi-institutional text like the rubric. We go for play and curiosity,
following the approaches offered in the book The Smile of Knowledge by
Fernández Bravo (2019).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 3
I
The
connotative meaning of the images of the collage is expressive.
However,
these images are not only selected due to their connotative meaning,
they are
also used taking advantage of other features.
·Photos are limited and cropped providing a relationship with the
background.
·These images participate in the form of the composition, expressing a
concept related to symmetry and antimetry.
T
The collage shows an expressive force.
The meaning of the pictures used in the collage can be
guessed, but it is not entirely clear why these images have been chosen.
Pictures are related to the meaning of the collage and
its strength, but their shape does not intervene in the composition of the
collage.
Pictures of the collage have been chosen in terms of
their connotative meaning and expressive force; however, their shape and their
suggestive spatial possibility have not been taken into account
Table 2
Table 2 Collaging the collage / Collageando el
Collage / Collagea collageatzen
Context
When we start this dynamic, the students
have just made the collage that is part of the ‘Aula-studio’ exercise defined in the previous article Besa (2019)
(However, for organizational reasons, in
the 2019-2020 academic year, this dynamic was carried out at another time
during the course)
Procedure
p1
We choose an exercise which is already
finished, the collage.
p2
We scan the collages of the students.
p3
The teacher designs a presentation of the
work in which he presents their collages in pairs in each slide. (See the
attached image of one slide. The reader can also notice this in the
photographs about the development of the dynamic, specifically in the images
that the screens show).
p4
The teacher assigns comments to each collage
in the slides. Comments based on an
interpretative and creative subjectivity, never a relativistic subjectivity.
The teacher designates each comment with a letter (A, B, Z, T, etc.) as the
title of the comment.
p5
In the presentation the teacher does not
define which collage each comment corresponds to. Students have to discover
it.
p6
Using the
title-letters, the students designate which comment each collage correspond
to.They write the letter on the
backside of a post-it.
p7
We place the
pair of post-it notes on the board in order,making them correspond to the position of each of the
collages.
Las parejas de post-it se van colocando en la pizarra o en un
panel en orden, haciéndolas corresponder con la posición de cada uno de los
collages.
p8
After
completing the exercise, we flip the post-it and discover that each group,
thanks to the position of the letters, has created the title: “ZORIONAK
GUZTIOI!” which means “CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL!” (Logically, it is the teacher
who has previously rigged the order of the letters of the titles so that when
solving the exercise, they remain in the order that forms said title)
p9
The evaluation
criteria implicit in the comments and the presentation of this dynamic can be
found later on the blog as part of the statement for the next collage.
Materials
m1
Presentation.
m2
Projector or screen.
m3
Post-it pads.
m4
Panel or whiteboard to stick the post-its.
Space
e1
Tables placed in groups for group work.
e2
A disposition that allows the view of the
projection and the panel.
Timing
50’
50 minutes for the dynamic.
5’
5 minutes break.
30’
30 minutes to comment and assimilate
previous steps.
20’
20 minutes for personal questions.
Objectives
ob1
Introducing
oneself into a subjective, creative, interpretive work; distinguishing it
from the most immediate and prevailing objectivist keys.
ob2
Differentiating
creative subjectivity from relativistic subjectivity.
ob3
Appropriating
the specific way of thinking about the subject (as practically all the groups
are right in the result, the students understand that the criteria and
contents of the subject are not as ambiguous as at first, they might seem).
ob4
Integrating and
assuming criticism in an open and enriched way.
ob5
Distancing and
freeing oneself from the emotional-affective filter, in this case, this
dynamic provides a distance from the exercise itself that allows participants
to listen and integrate different comments.
ob6
Obliquely
assimilating concepts and questions that are not so easy to understand in a
univocal or a direct way.
ob7
Assuming the
evaluation criteria of the exercise in an experiential way.
Discussion
These dynamic designs
an experience capable of transmitting a content that is difficult to
assimilate in an explicit or exclusively rational way Ledewitz (1985).
To do this, the
dynamic transforms one of the traditional processes of the design studio:
teacher-student criticism, or, as Schön Schön (1984) calls it,
teacher-student ‘reciprocal reflection-in-action’. In this case, this dymamic
extends the teacher-student relation involving the rest of the class within
it.
Thus, this
activity aims to offer an alternative to the problems of the teacher-student
relationship that are typical of design studio, some of them compiled in the
publications by Frederickson (1990), Anthony(1987) and Ciravoğlu(2014):
“The studio becomes the main medium of
architectural design education, and the conversation (mainly attributed as
critique) between student and the tutor becomes the means of this education.
Here the student is expected to learn by doing. However, the conversation,
which may be in one of the following forms as one-on-one, desk or jury
critique, is a very fragile one. According to Goldschmidt et al. (2010) many
students often misinterpret a critique of their work as waged against them in
person, which may result in anger, hurt feelings, or resistance. On the other
hand, many students, especially in the early stages of their studies, are
quite dependent on their teachers, and feel insecure until they receive from
the teacher both approval and explicit guidance for the advancement of their
projects. Even though the forms of critique are very determining, there is
too limited knowledge on the pedagogy of these critics. Schön (1984)identified that
learning in design studio begins with ill-defined problems (…)” Ciravoğlu (2014)
As the students introduce themselves into
the game, they integrate and assume the criticism of their work, as well as
criticism of the work of their classmates. Students are no longer directly
face to face with the teacher's criticism. Thus, any possible resistance is
diluted. Even the revision of the exercise is not immediate, but rather the
students have to wait until the end, and thus, the dynamic provides necessary
time to integrate and assume comments and criticism.
On the other hand, students receive the
teacher’s words indirectly, through the choice made by their classmates, from
a presentation in which their work is presented together with other works,
and thus, the content is approved and assumed by all.
The end result, "ZORIONAK
GUZTIOI!" (‘Congratulations to all!’ because everyone is right), shows
us that the criticism and its contents are not so partial or biased. Coming
from the subjectivity of the teacher and, therefore, being inevitably unique,
these comments can be assumed, interpreted, and integrated by the whole
group.
On the other hand, students are no longer
subjugated to or dependent on the teacher’s comments, but rather students
feel the need to interpret, elaborate and become active creators of the
conceptual content that allows them to self-evaluate their own projects.
This last question, along with the rest,
is enhanced with similar dynamics that are collected later in this article.
Table 3
Table 3 Evaluating evaluation / Evaluación de
la evaluación / Ebaluazioaren ebaluazioa
Mark only one answer in each case:
☐ If I have the
second evaluation in June, an extra exam becomes compulsory, regardless of
the evaluation of my course work.
☐ Doing the second evaluation in June is like
bringing forward the summer sales: you can pass for less!
☐ I agree that the course evaluation criteria
are fair, since they try to define and fine-tune a subject that, in the case
of Design Studio, is not so easily objectifiable.
☐ I don’t like the evaluation criteria, since
I have a habit of passing everything in June therefore doing much less than
my colleagues during the course.
☐ I agree that I have a 14-day margin in case
of any mishap that occurs means I will miss the deadline. I understand that
if I always miss the deadline, the mishap is me.
☐ I always deliver my projects 2 minutes late,
just when the deadline is over, testing the teacher’s patience and laughing
at my classmates who have delivered on time.
☐ I agree that this
test has consisted of a simple dynamic to replace the typical classic ‘spiel’
that explains the evaluation criteria at the beginning of the course.
☐ I don't like either
modern dynamics or classic ‘spiels.
Context
This dynamic takes place several days
after the evaluation criteria have been explained.
Procedure
p1
We prepare a
Google form related to the evaluation criteria of the course.
p2
We send it to
the students. They can fill in it is consulting the evaluation criteria of
the course in the blog.
p3
We design this
Google form with two answers per question. A correct answer and another
bizarre answer, reflecting attitudes and situations that, unfortunately,
students sometimes show, but they will never assume as their own
attitudes.
p4
Using
playfulness, the students get trapped, they have no other options than:
·Choose the correct answer, committing
themselves and acknowledging that they have read and understood the
evaluation criteria. Also, they assume that they understand that other
attitudes are not appropriate.
·Not answer the form, so they cannot later
claim that the evaluation criteria have not been made clear.
·Only people who will have no problems
passing can dare other alternatives, and thus, a student once even asked:
"Can I perform an answer?"
Materials
m1
Google Forms application or another
analogue platform.
m2
Mobile device or computer to answer the
test and consult the blog.
Space
e1
Online space
e2
For the future: search for the most
suitable platform, which could offer the best environment and design.
Timing
5’
5 minutes to explain the dynamic.
50’
50 minutes to do the test.
5’
5 minutes break.
30’
30 minutes to
comment the sense and objectives of the test and clarify any doubts regarding
the evaluation criteria.
Objectives
ob1
Dynamically
explaining, searching for alternatives to the traditional class.
ob2
Integrating
digital platforms and other means of communication subverting their immediate
application (it is not simply a matter of transferring the traditional class
to the online space, but rather it is about ‘taking advantage’ of its
possibilities).
ob3
Using jokes and
caricatures, we reflect on and bring out attitudes that at first sight we do
not want to recognize, but that deep down are an active force.
ob4
Taking
responsibility of our own decisions. Integrating one’s stance, reducing the
exculpatory tendency that is projected outwards.
Discussion
With this
dynamic, we again return to the issues raised about the ‘hidden curriculum’
(Dutton, 1987:16). As it has been pointed out in the first dynamic, education
largely consists of working, more or less directly or indirectly, on what is
happening in hidden strata or, more technically, unconscious layers.
With this test,
we try to generate a dynamic in which unconscious movements are revealed
indirectly, obliquely, through playfulness.
On the one
hand, the first thing that this dynamic reveal and explains is the approach
to the subject, ‘trying to define and fine-tune a subject that, in the case of Design
Studio, is not so easily objectifiable’; leaving
room for errors, accidents, repetitions, and recoveries, while leaving the
responsibility to students to take on board the decisions taken.
In the same way
that it does with the curriculum, the test also ‘uncovers’ attitudes of the
students that are more or less unconscious. I can declare that some of the
most absurd questions on the test are caricatures, just a ‘little’ exaggerated,
of attitudes that I have had to face during all these years dedicated to
education.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Table 4
Table 4 Evaluating a project (sei zentzu) /
Evaluando un proyecto (sei zentzu) / Sei zentzu proiektuaren ebaluazioa
Context
We perform this
dynamic while the students are developing the exercise ‘Sei Zentzu’ defined in the previous article Besa (2019). In that
exercise, students must overcome the difficulty of designing an action, pure
action and not decoration or physical design, in a place that is also
generic. This dynamic constitutes an evaluative stage once the first attempts
to solve the exercise have been made.
Procedure
p1
The teacher
classifies in groups the projects done by students. All standard errors are
collected in each group. In each group there is at least one project that represents
a standard error.
p2
Before the
students enter the classroom, the teacher arranges projects on the tables in
groups.
p3
Students come
into the classroom and place themselves in a group that does not include
their work. Students are thus randomly distributed in groups.
p4
Working in
groups they evaluate each one of the projects using the evaluation criteria
of the exercise, and they place a post-it on each project with a comment
written by all of them.
p5
Once they have
placed their comments, they also place the comments that the teacher had made
previously, which he/she had hidden under the tables. They compare their
comments with those of the teacher.
p6
Groups rotate
through the classroom, and thus they see the comments that other classmates,
as well as the teacher, have made about their work and about other projects.
p7
Once the
objectives and the standard errors have been assimilated through this
dynamic, the next day we give the students another opportunity and repeat the
exercise.
Materials
m1
Projects by students
m2
Post-it pads.
m3
Tape.
Space
e1
Tables arranged in groups.
e2
Students’
groups should have the possibility to rotate. In our case, despite the
limited space, we managed to achieve an arrangement that allowed a perimeter
tour and rotation.
Timing
5’
5 minutes of indications.
35’
35 minutes for groups to make their
comments.
10’
10 minutes to distribute teacher’s
comments.
5’
5 minutes break.
30’
30 minutes to see the rest of the
projects and comments.
20’
20 minutes for sharing.
Objectives
ob1
Evaluating and
co-evaluating one’s own work through the work of others.
ob2
Distancing
oneself and breaking any attachment to one’s own exercise to be able to
recognize issues that in a direct or explicit way would not be recognized.
ob3
Entering a
critical relationship in an open and plural way, avoiding comparisons typical
of close rivalries.
ob4
Discerning and
clarifying the subterfuges and the loopholes we cling to to avoid the creative
trance which a totally new exercise leads us to.
ob5
Recognizing the
meaning and the objectivity of an exercise and evaluation parameters that
initially seemed totally ethereal and relative to us.
ob6
Assimilating
concepts and questions that are not so easily understandable in an univocal
or direct way.
ob7
Assuming the
evaluation criteria of the exercise in an experiential way.
Discussion
The discussion
that would fit here is analogous to the one compiled in the ‘collaging the collage’
dynamic.
However, this
dynamic goes further: the students not only collect the evaluative content
that the teacher has defined, but also in this case, they are the ones who
develop critical content and later they compare it with the comments of the
rest of the students and the teacher.
Thus, we offer
an alternative that delves into the autonomy proposed by the ‘independent
decision making’ line in the work by Bose et al. (2006). However, this
dynamic intensifies certain variables such as play and interaction:
·At the beginning, the group carries out
the critique, still without knowing the teacher’s opinion, but taking into
account the criteria established in the rubric (first critical milestone).
·Then, groups have to correctly place the
teacher's comments on each project (second critical milestone, which helps
them to contrast the first step and prepares them for the next one).
·The groups develop this entire critique,
assessing the work of other colleagues before seeing the comments others have
made about their own work (third critical milestone).
As noted in the
‘collaging the collage’ dynamic, this tour allows a distance from one’s own
work, providing time and a process to access critical comments about the
student’s own work that they would not have directly assumed in the first
place.
But also, the
milestones described above try to elevate and give direction to mere comments
between students, comments that may lose their critical sense because they
are among ‘equals’. A ‘group peer critique’ (Ibid. p.35) does not guarantee
qualitative judgment just by constituting a group. Groups also deviate,
either to mere condescending comments that do not provide meaningful creative
content, or to the contrary, to destructive criticism generated by pure
rivalry.
In this case,
the teacher's intervention, and the dynamic itself try to rescue ‘group peer
critique’ of these deviations. The teacher, through his/her comments and the
design of this dynamic, sets an irrevocable direction. However, while
maintaining all authorship and authority, these dynamic distances the teacher
and also lowers his/her possible authoritarianism, in fact, his/her comments are
exposed and contrasted with those of the students, also generating, by this
interaction, a critical milestone for the teacher hooks (2021).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Table 5
Table 5 Evaluating Koolhaas, ‘anteprojecting’
warming up / Evaluando a Koolhaas, calentando motores anteproyecting
Context
This dynamic is
carried out before we develop the ‘Anteprojecting’ exercise
defined in the previous article Besa (2019) In this
exercise, the students are going to carry out several preliminary projects in
different commercial premises, rotating a single programme around them: the
programme of a luxury boutique. (The original title ‘Anteproyecting’ has been changed to ‘Anteprojecting’, more apropiate)
Procedure
p1
We put the
tables together and the students’ computers on them, generating a perimeter
tour, so we can move round.
p2
On each of the computers,
on the students’ internet browser, we search for a Koolhaas project for PRADA
firm. We offer these projects as inspiring examples for the ‘ante projecting’
exercise that we are going to develop next.
p3
In front of
each computer, we place the correction rubric with which the ‘anteprojecting’
exercise will be corrected.
p4
Each group uses
a different colour to mark comments on the rubric and corrects Koolhaas’
project using this rubric.
p5
We post the
project with our comments and
WE MARK KOOLHAAS!
p6
We move around
evaluating all the projects and reading the comments of the rest of the
students.
Materials
m1
Computers connected to the internet.
m2
Post-it pads.
m3
Printed rubric.
m4
Markers or
coloured pencils for each group to mark the rubric with different colours.
Space
e1
Tables arranged
to form an island that allows a perimeter tour.
Timing
10’
10 minutes to
place the computers and search the projects on the internet.
40’
40 minutes to comment on the projects.
5’
5 minutes break.
30’
30 minutes to write down the comments.
20’
20 minutes to share.
Objectives
ob1
Reading
(something very unusual nowadays). Reading the rubric and information on the
internet.
ob2
Critically
interpreting the information of the internet, helping each other to reach a
common understanding and a shared insight.
ob3
Assimilating
the contents and objectives of the exercise by way of a game, avoiding
unsuccessful theoretical classes.
ob4
Evaluating one
of the greatest (Koolhaas) by means of our rubric, thus assimilating the
rubric’s contents transversally. At the same time, by joking, we ‘lower’ one
of the greatest from his pedestal.
ob5
Breaking our
schemas and stereotypes, contrasting our prejudices with the radicality of
Koolhaas' examples.
ob6
Assimilating
previous examples in an active and participatory way, turning research into
experience.
Discussion
As the
interactional study model Salama (2015) and the
‘concept-test model’ Ledewit (1985) point out, the
designer approaches a project not so much by an analysis/synthesis process,
but rather in a ‘conjecture/analysis mode’. In the latter, the designer opts
in the first instance for a conceptual scheme that is tested by an analysis
and transformed by analogies into new ideas.
That is why the
starting conceptual schemas and previous ideas that build our preconceptions
and conjectures, fundamentally the information, is substantial when
approaching a project Salama (2015), Ledewitz (1985).
Therefore,
before the project is carried out, this dynamic enriches the vision of the
students, offering information while, at the same time, providing a tool for
its assimilation (the rubric) Salama (2015).
Thus, we offer
information to students not as a set of data that is not significant for the
designer, but rather as information that is assimilated through the
conceptual criteria included in the rubric. We do not offer the students
examples as a catalog of results or standard solutions, neither mere
prototype that are more or less stereotyped; we do not provide unqualified
content, but rather the code of the rubric allows them to assimilate the
information in a projective way. This offers a unique and creative
alternative to the ‘knowledge and design’ approach by Hillier et al. (1972).
In this way, we
direct and orient research towards certain conceptual objectives. We do not
discard other orientations that are more open to the students’ proposals,
orientations that promote personal interests of the students, thus guiding
the research towards free and autonomous initiative (as is pointed out in the
work by Fernando, 2018). However, we consider these dynamics more appropriate
for higher courses once the students have acquired and assimilated the
inescapable disciplinary concepts.
It is also
necessary to point out that we do not reference Koolhaas in an imitative way,
but rather we investigate his conceptual contributions. Thus, we move away
from the ‘analogical model’ Salama (2015), Simmons (1978). In this way,
as happened in the Aula-Studio exercise proposed in the previous article Besa (2019), we approach references
not so much by copying or imitating them, but rather by conceptually
understanding/interpreting them.
In addition,
since we evaluate Koolhaas, we are daring to question one of the greatest. We
dialogue with him through his accomplishments, rotating in a group. As a
result, we overthrow the absolutist and individualistic positions that
certain figures have reached Besa (2019), Besa (2021a). Through an
interactive discussion we break the individualism, the excessive notoriety of
the ‘solo artist’ Kellbaugh (2004).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Table 6
Table 6 sprint-projecting
Context
This dynamic is
developed in addition to the other dynamics of the 'Anteprojecting' exercise defined in the previous article Besa (2019)
In the first
instance, we carried out the dynamic of the ‘anteprojecting’ exercise defined
in the previous article:
·We define an exercise with different
commercial premises: named A, B, C, D, etc. Each with a problem to solve
narrow premises, premises with more than one level, premises in the middle of
a park, premises divided by a commercial passage, premises on the top floor
of a tower, old premises with an entrance shared with the access to other
houses, among other examples.
We developed
several two-hour challenges.
·On the first day, we raffle the different
types of premises among the students, assigning one type to each student.
They have to design a boutique.
·The next day each student corrects the
design of a partner. They make the correction that the teacher would make,
marking the rubric and marking a copy of the work of the partner (from here
on we continue online due to lockdown).
·The following day the ‘challenge’
continues: each student reinterprets and redesigns the project that they
corrected the day before.
·The day after that, together with their
partner, they make a group, and they solve a new project in new premises.
Before this
last step, we performed the following dynamic:
Procedure
p1
Each student
makes an A5 format booklet with several white sheets.
p2
We hold a draw;
using Flippity we change the order of the class list.
p3
Each student
begins to solve the project in one of the premises.
p4
After 5 minutes,
each student passes a picture of his/her work by WhatsApp to the next student
on the list (in the classroom it would be done by physically handing over the
notebook).
p5
Each time we
pass the notebook we reduce the time: first 5 minutes, then 2 minutes…
finally 1 minute.
p6
Once the
dynamic is over, each student collects all the images that were sent, puts
them in a PDF and delivers the document to the teacher.
Materials
m1
Due to the
coronavirus lockdown, the dynamics from now on were carried out online. This
is why internet and mobile connection were necessary to send the documents
quickly.
m2
White sheets to
make an A5 booklet.
m3
Pencil, no
rubber allowed.
Space
e1
Desk at
student’s workplace.
e2
WhatsApp or
email connection network between students.
e3
Skype
connection to organize the dynamic, set times, etc.
Timing
10’
Ten minutes to
explain and organize the dynamic.
40’
40 minutes to
develop the dynamic in successive stages of increasingly shorter time.
5’
5 minutes
break.
20’
Comment on the
result and the objectives of the dynamic.
Objectives
ob1
Instrumentalizing
representation as a methodological tool, speeding up the representative
process to unsuspected extremes with the intention of reaching what would be
unexpected and impossible solutions in a conventional logical-rational
process.
ob2
Liberating
freehand representation with the aim of being able to produce and represent
projects that can be communicated in an agile way without weighing down the
creative process.
ob3
Speeding up and
stimulating freehand representation.
ob4
Broadening and
expanding students’ own ideas and conceptions through the integration and
transformation of ideas of other colleagues.
ob5
Creatively reappropriating
digital and media tools, redirecting them towards unconventional uses
(WhatsApp).
Discussion
This dynamic
offers the opportunity to readjust and correct initial sketches and ideas,
enriching the preconceptions of initial approaches by students in the first
instance. Thus, we introduce students into the design method of multiple
cycles: a concept proposal followed by its corresponding critical test that
leads to a new concept Ledewitz (1985).
Thanks to these
exchanges, with the reception of the ideas from different colleagues and due
to the constant changes of premises, students obtain a critical distance from
their own project and form their own projecting method. Thus, they assume an
impartial or an indirect criticism that would be difficult to admit directly Ledewitz (1985).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Table 7
Table 7 Tectonic materials / Materiales
tectónicos / Material tektonikoak
Context
This dynamic is
carried out before we start the exercise ‘Txiringito’
defined in the previous article Besa (2019). In this exercise,
students must develop a Stand based on a specific construction material.
Procedure
p1
We list some
construction materials: wood, brick, phenolic panel, aluminum composite
panel, plastic, glass, etc.
p2
Each of the
materials on the list is linked to each of the published issues of TECTÓNICA magazine.www.tectonica.es/p/pen.html
p3
We raffle
materials among the students, assigning a material to each one.
p4
We provide a
template with the basic questions to answer:
Extending the
theoretical content provided by TECTÓNICA
magazine, students will search for technical and commercial information on
the internet.
P6
We proposed the
exercise in line with the subject of construction. The rest of the subjects
of the course also collaborated: history, photography, design culture, among
others.
Materials
m1
Paper and pencil.
m2
TECTÓNICA magazine, each student with the issue
they have been assigned.
m3
Mobile device
to photograph or any scanning tool.
Space
e1
Online space
created with Drive and Skype.
e2
This dynamic
was carried out online. If we had physically worked in the classroom, we
would have looked for a way to meet for critical and co-evaluative sessions.
Timing
7d
7 days until a
preliminary deadline in which we evaluate the process by means of written corrections
and common public criticisms via Skype.
7d
7 more days to
complete the exercise.
14d
This dynamic
provided time and served as a buffer to organize the online education system.
Objectives
ob1
Exploring the
ins and outs of the construction discipline, getting used to diving into its
dispersed, generic, and often contradictory information (especially in terms
of terminology and classifying parameters).
ob2
Facing the big
problem of the construction world: taking a generic solution from a catalogue
and making it your own solution. Interpreting extensive theoretical
information from specific and particular parameters.
ob3
Critically
assuming the commercial information of certain products from defined
technical criteria.
ob4
Differentiating
physical construction concepts that due to confusion tend to overlap, all
this through a practical application.
ob5
Synthesizing
information visually and graphically.
ob6
Liberating
freehand representation in order to be able to produce, and quickly
represent, design sketches and construction details on site.
ob7
Defining the
construction bases of the material that has been assigned, as prior
information for carrying out the subsequent project.
Discussion
This dynamic is
integrated into a broader exercise, called ‘Txiringito’, explained in the
previous paper Besa (2019). It simulates
a real commission: a construction material company requests to design a
promotional stand in the free space outside the centre where we study.
Given the
difficulty of simulating a commission and a real situation in the educational
field, we make this attempt to bring students closer to the ‘case problem
approach’ by Marmot and Symes (1985), in our particular situation, through a
project in our school, which was also going to be completed with an Erasmus
exchange with a school (Alpha College) in the Netherlands. The exchange was
frustrated by the lockdown.
However, in
this specific dynamic, the approach to real practice is carried out by
leading students to the commercial world of construction and its disparity of
information. A very real and difficult situation in construction.
We tried other
approaches with a fundamentally social content in other courses, close to the
‘case problem approach’ mentioned here. We approached the reality of the
elderly (exercise ‘Ayunta-chunta’ described in the previous paper, ‘#eindakoa#’ (Besa (2019), and
‘Abue-linking’ exercise carried out in the 2018-2019 academic year in
collaboration with Beti Gizartean Foundation).
This dynamic is
carried out during the exercise ‘Txiringito’ defined in the previous article Besa (2019). In this
exercise, students must develop a Stand based on
a specific construction material.
Procedure
p1
The teacher
creates a blog using WordPress.
An extra blog
produced to deepen the online learning we have been forced into by the
COVID-19 lockdown.
p2
Categories are
defined according to language (Basque or Spanish).
p3
Teacher creates
posts:
·images of students’ works
·images and videos of other projects
·open comments that need to be completed
·open controversial issues
p4
Students have
to comment on the posts made by the teacher and also any comments made by
other classmates.
p5
The teacher
also participates by commenting and promoting discussion and dialogue.
Materials
m1
Blog created on
WordPress.
m2
Drive folder
where the students upload their work.
Space
e1
Online learning
space created on the web using a blog.
Timing
1w
1 week, the
professor revises the student’s work, he/she posts this work on the blog with
the corresponding comments.
=
During the same
week, students receive individual critiques; these critiques become group
critiques on the blog.
2w
The blog
continues active during the following weeks, during a week of vacation and
the weeks after that. It can be accessed by the students, where they can get
some criteria if they are stuck in their project and need to move forward.
1m
Subsequently,
participation is again encouraged during the following month.
Objectives
ob1
Evaluating and
co-evaluating one’s own work, in this case on the web.
ob2
Obtaining
criteria in the discipline’s issues, a criterion that cannot be achieved
without common and exchanged critiques.
ob3
Developing
basic autonomy when making design decisions.
ob4
Breaking the
dependency on the critique of the teacher, on the exclusive approval of the
teacher.
Discussion
This activity
aims to offer an alternative to the problems of teacher-student criticism
typical of the design studio, problems already mentioned in a previous
dynamic, listed in the work by Ciravoğlu (2014).
It should be
noted that the blog changed throughout the course. The first posts were long,
waiting for the comments of the students. Later, this question was improved,
making shorter posts and participating after in the students’ comments.
Thus, the blog
evolved, instead of presenting the entire content first while waiting for the
subsequent discussion, it started to clarify the content through
participation in the discussion.
In reality,
this dynamic is not so different from previous dynamics and basically it is
the dynamic of so many blogs that already exist. We do not intend to downplay
it, but beyond the originality with respect to the previous proposals, we
show here this dynamic to point out the process of disappropriation that
every teacher must go through.Ellsworth (2005).
This is a very
important question, as it is the process that every teacher must follow in
all dynamics. Being a teacher involves a big effort of disappropiation. In
essence, any dynamic should basically ‘make room’ for the initiative and the
will of the students to emerge. Teaching, then, is not “knowing how to
teach”, but rather, “learning to teach”. Teaching to learn by “listening to
the learner”, as the title of the work by Bravo (2019) points out.
It is also
important to remember that an online dynamic never replaces a face-to-face
dynamic. At least in this technique, participation is not simultaneous, and
comments are answered with delay, losing direct spontaneity and immediate
interaction. In other techniques and applications tested during the Covid-19
lockdown we have achieved greater fluidity, although it is easily verified
that they never replace actually being present in the classroom.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Table 9
Table 9 Tear out / Rasgar, arrancar / Urratu
Context
This dynamic is
already mentioned in the previous article Besa (2019), within the ‘Aula-Studio’ teaching unit (pp.
35-37). The exercise comes from the ‘Ideas
Course’ tutored by Amanda Hopkins and Tony Clelford in July 2010 at
Central Saint Martins.
Procedure
p1
First of all,
the teacher explains the dynamic, demonstrating the process by
himself/herself, then the exercise begins:
p2
The teacher
asks a question, the students have to answer using the dynamic.
How did you
feel during lockdown?
What positive attitude
have you found out about yourself that you did not know about before this
period?
p3
In a scant
minute, students flip through the magazine and tear out the pages containing
images that suggest something to them in relation to the question asked. Fast,
unconscious, compulsive movements, with hardly any thought, while the teacher
urges them not to stop or not to reflect.
p4
Afterwards, in
another minute, students fold (if they want) the pages, selecting the parts
they are interested in, and spread them out over a large space that has been
made available on their desk. Again, compulsive movements.
p5
With the mobile
device, each student takes pictures of his/her display of images and uploads
them to Drive.
p6
Once the entire
class has performed this procedure, we view and interpret the assignments one
by one.
p7
First, around a
single work, anyone other than the author interprets what they see.
Afterwards, the teacher and, later, the author offer their interpretation.
p8
The instructions
and the statement of the exercise can be found on the blog, in this case once
the exercise has been completed.
Materials
m1
A pile of
magazines full of images.
m2
Mobile device
to take pictures.
m3
In the case of
not having magazines, any material that is available at home can be used.
Space
e1
It is important
to free up the space to be able to expand on the arrangement of the images.
No spatial limit should further confine our freedom!
e2
Space to
comment on images, physically around the table, or webspace due to lockdown.
(The photographs include the Web version and the on-site version performed in
the 2020-2021 academic year)
Timing
5’
5 minutes to
explain the dynamic.
1’
1 minute for a
compulsive and agile tearing out of images from magazines.
1’
1 minute to
make an arrangement or display of the chosen images.
10’
10 minutes to
comment on each selected display.
20’
The dynamic is
repeated once or twice.
15’
Reading the
statement and commenting on it (in this case the statement is delivered at
the end, never at the start so as not to condition the exercise).
Objectives
ob1
Quick and
unconscious movement to enhance the right side of the brain.
ob2
Unconsciously
associating or suggesting, but also interpreting the results.
ob3
Getting into
creative interpretive subjectivity, different from relativistic opinion.
ob4
Exploring the
intrinsic chiasmus type relationship between subject and object
(Merleau-Ponty, 1964) present in all artistic activities (subject/object,
symbolic/formal, etc.) (This objective was already in the paper #eindakoa#).
ob5
Integrating a
useful technique for moments of stagnation when it is necessary to encourage
intuition and inspiration.
Discussion
This exercise
seeks to offer students a freedom that is typical of creative
self-expression. This is an educational trend developed in the sixties which
echoes approaches of the preliminary course at bauhaus by itten Vega (2019), and even
previous ones, of Fröebel’s or Pestalozzi’s education Vega (2019).
However, while
the exercise enhances unconscious expression and projection, it also aims to
introduce students to interpretive work. It is not only about projecting or
expressing, of course it is necessary to allow ideas to flow and to connect
with unconscious strata, but also, it is important to be able to interpret
the result, conceptualize it, decipher the keys that allow us to advance and
glimpse the next step.
In this sense,
as we value interpretation as the genuine thought of the project studio, we
share Gallagher’s hermeneutical thought (1992, collected in Philippou (2001).
“Based on the two premises of Gallagher’s
exploration of the connection between education and interpretation, that
‘understanding is always interpretational’ and that ‘learning always involves
interpretational’ (Gallagher 1992), I propose a conception of the design
studio as the site of active interpretation, and the site where a synthesis
of a multiplicity of interpretations bearing on architecture takes place. A
hermeneutical approach to the learning activity in the design studio is,
necessarily, based on a conception of the architectural design process itself
as an interpretation process. (…)
‘An essential aspect of all educational
experience (…) involves venturing into the unknown’ (Gallagher 1992). At the
same time, however, ‘a large part of the art of thought, and small enough so
that, in addition to the confusion naturally attending the novel elements,
there shall be luminous spots from which helpful suggestions may spring’
(John Dewey).”
Figure 10
Figure 10
Table 10
Table 10: Alter-theory
Context
This exercise was developed in October
2020, once the article had been sent to the magazine of the Spanish version
of the paper. This exercise deserves to be included in the paper since it
introduces an alternative innovation to online teaching, and also because it
complements the previous online exercises.
This dynamic
was carried out during the exercise ‘Krisi
dwelling’ defined in the previous article (‘#eindakoa#’, Besa,
2019:37-38). In this exercise, students must graphically analyze mythical
houses of modernity through conceptual drawings without being able to express
anything through writing.
Procedure
p1
Until now, the
teacher used to explain the book ‘Commentary on Drawings by 20 Current
Architects’ Cortés and Moneo (1976). This theory
accompanied one of the didactic units of the course following the traditional
class model.
p2
Given the
coronavirus situation, instead of directly transferring the traditional
master class to the online system, we we opte for an alternative: alter-theory.
p3
We form groups,
we assign each group one of the architects that the teacher used to explain:
Le Corbusier, Wright, Mies, Kahn, etc.
p4
We give out the
material that the teacher used until now. Both the theoretical support and
the slide show.
p5
Each group
makes a video, maximum 6 minutes, explaining one of the architects
(exceptionally they can extend it to 10 minutes if the video does not repeat
itself).
p6
We upload all
the videos to a shared folder and students watch all the videos.
p7
Once students
watch all the videos, they fill in a shared and editable Excel table called
‘alter-theory’. In this Excel table we find the following questions:
p8
The first
question in the table (see image):
"What
would Le Corbusier think of Wright?"
"What
would Wright think of Le Corbusier?" Etc.
That is to say,
each group takes on the personality of its architect and makes him comment on
the architecture and drawings of the architect of other groups.
p9
The second
question:
“How does each
architect contradict what he learned in the previous didactic unit?”
Note: In the
previous didactic unit we taught a very precise and very disciplinary way of
delineating. In this didactic unit 'we unlearn what we have learned' and we
discover that drawing and graphic expression are tools that each architect
recreates according to his/her communicative intention and interests (see:
#eindakoa#, Besa, 2019:37-38).
p10
In the same
online Excel table, each group makes an assessment of the oral presentation
of the rest of the groups.
To do this, we
give the students a list of evaluation criteria for oral presentations.
P11
The teacher
makes his/her own evaluations, but places them out of order; students have to
discover which group each teacher’s comment corresponds to.
Materials
m1
Computer,
internet connection.
m2
The book:
‘Commentary on Drawings by 20 Current Architects’ Cortés and Moneo (1976).
m3
App or software
for making and editing videos.
Space
e1
Desk at students’
workplace.
e2
Shared folder
on Drive.
e3
Shared editable
Excel document.
Timing
10’
Ten minutes to
explain and organize the dynamic. We explain it using an online video.
2h
2 hours for
reading the theoretical material and understanding the projects.
2h
2 hours for the
preparation of the oral presentation and the making of the video.
3h
3 hours to see
the videos of the rest of the groups and comment on them in the Excel table.
Objectives
ob1
Transferring
the theory to an online space in a creative way. Encouraging the creation of
another/alternative theory, alter-theory.
ob2
Recreating
theory in a personalized, active, and involved way.
ob3
Bringing the
theory back to life, leading the students to even take on the role of the
‘big’ giants that we explained in this theory.
ob4
Relating and
linking the characters that until now have been shown to us as free-standing
heroes in representations that distort their human figures. That is why it is
a theory of ‘the other’, of ‘the alter’, a theory of otherness, alter-theory.
ob5
Integrating the
evaluation criteria in an experiential way, seeing errors similar to mine in
‘the others’ (alter-theory) and allowing ‘the others’ to make me see mine.
ob6
Participating
in a cross evaluation in which even the teacher's evaluations are exposed to
criticism.
Discussion
I teach in two groups, in which:
Group B: total failure.
Group A: relatively
well resolved, although we can observe some of the same problems as Group B.
(Group B had the handicap of being fewer, therefore there was more work. In
addition, in their case, they had to translate all the material into Basque).
With the implementation
of this dynamic, in the event that the students manage to minimally express
the concepts related to the drawing of ‘the great’ architects, we can see how
innumerable interactions and fruitful interpretations arise from the
questions asked in the table. On the one hand, the students take on the role
of the architects deducing and recreating the opinion that they would offer
each other about their drawings. On the other hand, the perception that the
students capture with respect to the drawings of 'the greats' in relation to
what they previously learned in the previous didactic unit is tremendously
interesting.
Actually, the
dynamic worked in both groups. Even in the crudest failure, it also worked.
In fact, when the teacher saw the videos, he immediately foresaw the failure,
yet he still went ahead and let the students crash.
What interest
could we have in this failure?
·Suffering in my own flesh how badly I
sometimes communicate, having to fill in a table based on the information
that was poorly communicated by other colleagues.
Suffering in my
own flesh ‘the others’ to find out
who I am. Alter-theory.
Using cross
dynamics in which I simply evaluate colleagues is not enough, they tend to
lead us to soft generic judgments because we all avoid conflict in one way or
another. In this dynamic, we are all compromised because if the partner has
not done his/her job correctly I cannot continue with mine.
·Loss of information.
Some students
did not heed the teacher’s instructions and did not carry out this task in
pursuit of the established objectives.
Some students
made their video from other material, different from the one prescribed in
the exercise. This material did not even refer to the architects’ drawings,
nor did it answer the questions that students had to fill in on the table.
Although the
instructions were provided in a short video that the students could watch
over and over again, and despite the fact that all the material was presented
clearly in a folder, the basic instructions of the teacher were disregarded.
Furthermore,
when we have to transmit the information ourselves, we lose content, as the
failure of the exercise shows.
In other words,
the failure of this dynamic makes us aware of the emptiness we are doomed to
if we do not assume autonomy and basic responsibility.
·We note the difficulty of some texts like
these. We do not access the basic depth, nor do we have the basic culture or
basic knowledge to understand them.
We are facing a vicious circle, because
in order to understand this type of text it is necessary to read them more,
but to be able to read them with some interest it is necessary to understand
them.
In other words,
failure leads us to better appreciate the explanations of those who can
introduce us to understandings that we cannot access by ourselves. Failure
leads us to appreciate something that until now we had taken for granted.
Thus, surely
this dynamic does not reach the depths of someone like Lévinas, who (in his
work Totalité et infinite, 1961)
attempts to open sameness to radical otherness
(to radical difference), however,
it is a dynamic that has made us break ourselves and be aware of how we
became very accustomed to the ‘same’
without giving it the value that corresponds to it.
But precisely,
if this game calls into question how little we take advantage of a
traditional theoretical class, its failure also reveals the loss of
information and rigor that occurs in many alternative dynamics. This failure
has led the students to request a repetition of the exercise to collect the
information that had been lost. Something completely new that we have to
fully appreciate.
The student’s
performance in the following exercise improved substantially.
2. CONCLUSION
This paper presents an open conclusion. It does not end
like the previous one (#eindakoa#), in which the last part wrapped up the paper
with an explanation of the cohesion and meaning of the entire course.
On the contrary, in this case, the conclusion stays open
to a continuity and prolongation of these essays in works and dynamics in the
near future. In fact, the Covid-19 lockdown has truncated the normal
development of the course and has forced us at the last moment to implement
dynamics in an online format, which shows to what extent this article is open
to contingency.
However, we do not understand this contingency as
something negative, nor is that the only reason for not concluding this paper
in the same way as the previous one. The true reason is that the work is in a
moment of experimentation that has a lot to do with the same experimental
character of these dynamics (thus we share Ellsworth's
approach, (2005). This does not mean
that a conclusion has been avoided, since in some way it is already present in
the discussion and evaluation of each one of the dynamics.
Beyond the fact that the article is open to future
conclusions, we do find a conclusive common point to all the dynamics: the
experimental and artistic, almost performative, nature of this approach. Since,
if the objective is teaching to design, if the content of the course consists
of teaching how to create actions and even events, its dynamics cannot but be
artistically designed and also be thought of as pure actions and events.
In this way, the article is open to development and
action, to future situations that, creatively addressed, will yield pedagogical
alternatives from which we will continue to learn.
Credits
The works shown in this article, as well as on the blog,
were developed by students of Interior Design Projects course who took part in
these dynamics, during 2019-2020 and 2020-2021:
Amaia Alba, Yaiza Etxaniz, Janire Ezcurdia, Naroa
González, Naiara Guerra, Nerea Labraza, Iraia Lecuona, Selma Dennis Linares,
Amaia Molinuevo, Maite Morrás, Andoni Muñóz, Alisson Nicol Ochoa, Ainhoa
Saavedra, Jorge Leonardo Velázquez, Julene Arburua, Jakue Arruabarrena, Olatz
Barragan, Marina Bocos, Andrea del Hoyo, Jasna Gora de Vicente, Naroa Iraola,
Sarai Iturriotz, Maider Ann Jenkin, Eider Macazaga, Ainhoa Mardones, Yeray
Marquez, Rocio Ortega, Naia Ortiz de Zarate, Amaia Pidal, Naiara Armentia, Naia
Campesino, Clara Gibaja, Maialen Muñoa, Ane Rayo, Amaiur Sáez de Eguilaz,
Josune Santiago, Nerea Sanz, Amaia Subinas, Eire Vila, Katalin Ortiz, Ane
Anton, Ainare Azconizaga, Maiane Eguiluz, Marta Escudero, Paula Fernández,
Maitane Fernández del Moral, Delia Gómez, Aitana Manzano, Patricia Marquinez,
Anne Miranda, Gaizka Perez de Carrasco, Nahia Pombar, Sara Rodríguez, Yuqian
Shi, Emilia Tit, Garazi Zúñiga.
In order to develop the comparative of the ‘Collaging the
collage’ dynamic, we also used works by the students in 2018-2019:
The works published in the dynamic called ‘Tear out’ were
carried out by Jorge Leonardo Velázquez (on the left) and by Amaia Molinuevo
(on the right).
The work that can be seen in the screenshot taken from
‘Txiringito critic’ and the work in ‘Tectonic Materials’ were developed by
Jorge Leonardo Velázquez.
The works published in the dynamic called ‘Collaging the
collage’ were carried out by Nerea Olaguenaga (on the left) and by Amaia Alba
(on the right).
The works published in the ‘Sprint-projecting’ dynamic
were carried out by (from left to right): Ainhoa Mardones, Olatz Barragan,
Nerea Labraza and Andrea del Hoyo.
Photographs by the author, except:
Small photographs of the ‘Collageando el collage’ dynamic.
Top right (orange post-it), photograph by Naia Campesino. Bottom left (colored
post-it), photograph by Emilia Tit
[1]This paper has been partially published in Spanish in
this previous version:
Besa, E.
(2021b).dynamics-aktion. Propuesta de dinámicas pedagógicas, útiles en el
Taller de Proyectos de diseño y más allá.EARI, Educación Artística Revista de Investigación, 12, 23-42.
[2] The translation into English
of this paper has been revised by Robert Hextall, English Coaching Projects S
Coop.
[3] Besa,
E. (2019). #eindakoa# (lo que hemos hecho) Un MÉTODO pedagógico del MÉTODO de
Proyectos de Diseño de Interior. EARI, Educación Artística Revista de
Investigación, 10, 33-63.
This paper (#eindakoa#) has been presented, peer
reviewed and accepted to be published in English in the Architectural Episodes 02 (2022)
congress proceedings..
4IRALE R300 course in
Vitoria-Gasteiz, autumn 2019, teachers: Eider Etxeberria, Zuriñe Iarritu,
Arantza Goikoetxeaundia, Idoia Novoa and Lontxo Rojo. The supervising team was formed by Bernar Etxeberria,
Zuriñe Iarritu and Idoia Novoa. It is also necessary to note that synergy and
respect between colleagues were also great incentives for the development of
the course.