|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Architectural Laboratory II Description and Assessment
|
||
|
Table of contents: 1. Introduction 5. The Teaching Process |
|||
|
|
5. The Teaching Process |
||
|
|
The Architectural Laboratory is based on extensive interaction between instructor and student. In Architectural Laboratory I, one instructor led each of the studio's eight weeks. In doing so, each of the instructors worked closely with the studio coordinator, who also led the first week of the studio. Architectural Laboratory II, although building upon the achievements of Architectural Laboratory I, took a slightly different approach. This was partly because it was a three-week (rather than eight-week) event, and therefore had a smaller number of instructors. It also dealt with a single urban problem rather than a set of small-scale architectural ones. The instructors consequently decided to co-teach the studio together. Sahel Al Hiyari and Yasir Sakr carried out the first two weeks jointly, and were joined by Kristopher Musumano beginning in the third week. The presence of Kristopher was extremely helpful. He had never visited Amman before arriving in it for the third week of the studio, and his presence therefore brought a completely fresh view to the process. He had no preconceptions of Amman, and this neutral view worked extremely well when combined with the more intimate knowledge that the other two instructors have of the city. As a result, the students have had the opportunity to simultaneously work with three instructors, and what they often got was even better than a one-to-one relationship: a one (student)-to-three (teachers) relationship. Considering that the studio was a full-time endeavor for its three week duration, the students were able to benefit from a process of intense interaction with three accomplished architectural practitioners / academicians. The number of students for Architectural Laboratory I was 15. The number for Architectural Laboratory II was only 8. The lower enrollment is very much connected to the unprecedented construction boom that Jordan currently is undergoing in contrast to the less active architectural scene prevalent in the country during the summer of 2003. As a result of the tremendous work load that architectural offices are facing, not a single office would let any of its staff members off for a period of three weeks to attend the studio. Although it would have been preferable to have a larger number of students join the studio, the small number allowed each of the students to receive a very high level of personalized attention. The students were given the option of working on the project as individuals or in pairs. Two students chose to work alone and the remaining six chose to work in pairs. The work process was intense, and design reviews were carried out almost on a daily basis. Through these reviews, the students presented their work, and received feedback regarding the work from the instructors and also (though not as extensively) from their colleagues. Outside reviewers also attended a number of the reviews (one of the authors attended at least a couple of reviews during each of the studio's three weeks), and this allowed for additional input and an additional cross-fertilization of opinions. Although the objective of the process was not to produce completed designs as much as design strategies, it seemed to us as observers of the process that by the end of the three-week studio the work had come to a bit of truncation and that it did not achieve a sense of "closure." The students had come a long way in terms of assessment and analysis, but the process of intervention had not reached its logical conclusion. Still, they all seemed to agree that they learned a great deal and that the experience has transformed the manner in which they deal with built form. Finally, a positive aspects of an event such as this one is that the students participate in it purely for purposes of professional and educational self-development. There are no grades to be given and no degrees to be granted (the students only get a certificate of attendance). On the one hand, this takes much of the psychological stress associated with courses connected to degrees and for which grades are to be handed out. On the other hand, those attending usually are fully motivated and are eager to learn. This results in a most healthy learning environment. This was our experience in both Architectural Laboratory I and Architectural Laboratory II. |
||
|
|
