Design Charrette Pedagogy in Flipped Classroom to

Enable Creative Exploration Outside Design Studio

Higher Education Campus Conference 2019

DR. SIU-KIT LAU | MS. NOOPUR JOSHI

Architecture Education Design Charrette | 2

Design

Studio

Module 1

Module 2

Module 3

Module 4

Module 6

Module 5 Domain

knowledge

Compartmentalized model of architecture education

Design Studio & Preparatory Modules Design Charrette | 3

GAP

Design

Studio

Module-1 Module-2 Module-3

Module-4 Module-5 Module-6

Knowledge derived in classrooms

Studio Module

● Analytical Understanding

● Creative Application

Non-Studio Modules

● Conceptual understanding

● Lower cognitive processes like

remembering & understanding

● No Creative exploration

Transdisciplinary Framework Design Charrette | 4

Design Studio

Module 2

Module 3

Module 1

Module 6

Module 5 Module 4

Preparatory Modules Design Charrette | 5

Current scenario

Declarative Knowledge

(88% of teaching time)

Future

Functioning Knowledge

Flipped Classroom Model Design Charrette | 6

Learning Activity

Functioning Knowledge

Lectures

Declarative Knowledge

Assignment

Functioning Knowledge

Current Scenario

Video Lectures

Declarative Knowledge

Proposed Scenario

FCR

Pillars of Flipped classroom Design Charrette | 7

1

Pedagogy

2

Technology

Source: Steelcase. (2015). Active Learning Spaces

http://www.steelcase.com/content/uploads/2015/01/ V5-SE-Insights-Guide-pricing-interactive.pdf

Flipped Classroom Model

3

Space

Environmental Systems Module Design Charrette | 8

Expanse of Topics

Heating &

ventilation

Plumbing &

Drainage

Electrical

Fire

Safety

Technical nature of topics

Large student-teacher ratioNew topics

Creative design

assignment

High student-teacher

ratio

Design

Charrette

Creative design

assignment

Limited time

High student-teacher

ratio

Design Charrette Design Charrette | 9

Design

charrette

Design Charrette Design Charrette | 10

Group 1

3-8 Students

Creative & Analytic

Encourages

BrainstormingTime-based

Collaborative

G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7

Evaluate

Design

Design Process Design Charrette | 11

Analyse

Synthesize

Design Critique Design Charrette | 12

Presentations

DiscussionsFeedback

Design CritEvaluation

Process

● Individually with tutor

1. Desk Crit

● Group crit amongst peers

2. Peer Crit

● Group crit amongst peers

& tutor

3. Group Crit

Types of Crit

Design charrette

Instruction Intended Learning

Outcome

Creativity

Design critique Cognitive ability

(evaluate)

Q1: What is the effects of design charrette on students’ creativity?

1

2

Research Questions Design Charrette | 13

Q2: What is the effect of design critique on students’ ability to evaluate designs?

Batch (treatment group)

140 students

Tutorial 1

35 students

Tutorial 2

35 students

Tutorial 3

35 students

Tutorial 4

35 students

Cohort 1

70 students

Cohort 2

70 students

Group 2

5 students

Group 1

5 students

Group 3

5 students

Group 4

5 students

Group 5

5 students

Group 6

5 students

Group 7

5 students

Student Grouping Design Charrette | 14

Sem

este

r

Semester Schedule Design Charrette | 15

Introduction

Heating & Ventilation

Plumbing & Drainage

Fire Safety

Electrical

Integration

Week 1

Week 2

Week 5

Week 7

Week 8

Week 6

Week 3

Week 4

Week 10

Week 11

Week 9

Cohort 1

Cohort 1

Cohort 2

Cohort 1

Cohort 2

Cohort 1

Cohort 2

Cohort 1

Cohort 2

Cohort 2

Design Charrette

(50 min)

Design Critique

(50 min)

Case study findings

Brainstorm ideas

Presentation

Feedback

Evaluate

Discussion

Design solution

Design resolution

In Class Activity: Design Charrette & Critique Design Charrette | 16

In-c

lass A

ctivity (

1 h

our

40 m

in)

1. Creative Trait

a. Fluency

b. Flexibility

c. Originality

SSCM: Scientific

Measuring Creativity Design Charrette | 17

2. Creative Process

a. Imagination

b. Thinking/ Elaboration

3. Creative Product

a. Source

b. Distribution Network

c. Execution

Assessment Criteria (Tutor) 4 3 2 1

Creative trait

Fluency Number of ideas

FlexibilityNumber of categories of

relevant ideas (width)

Originality Rarity of idea

Fluency Flexibility Originality

Design Charrette Assessment Design Charrette | 18

Assessment Criteria (Peers) 4 3 2 1

Creative processThinking/ Elaboration Detail of relevant idea (depth)

Imagination/Visualisation Resolution of idea

Creative product Technical knowledge/ rigor

Source

Distribution

Execution

Thinking/ Elaboration Imagination/ Visualisation Product

Design Charrette Assessment Design Charrette | 19

Criteria Beginning (1) Developing (2) Accomplished (3) Exemplary (4)

System description The essay does not detail out the system type with overview diagrams,

system components explained as a

part of the whole, system area/

volume through comparative values.

The essay details out some of the

system type with overview diagrams,

system components explained as a

part of the whole, system area/

volume through comparative values.

The essay clearly details out most of

the system type with overview

diagrams, system components

explained as a part of the whole,

system area/ volume through

comparative values.

The essay precisely details out all of

the system type with overview

diagrams, system components

explained as a part of the whole,

system area/ volume through

comparative values.

Demonstrate system

integration using

model or schematic

drawings

The essay reflects a fair

understanding of systems with an

attempt to identify the system

integration, but is not clear.

The essay reflects an appropriate and

sound understanding of systems with

an attempt to identify the system

integration, but is not comprehensive.

The essay reflects a clear and precise

understanding of systems with

accurate identification and

comprehensive description of system

integration.

The essay reflects a deep and

nuanced understanding of systems

with highly accurate identification of

system integration that are effectively

investigated.

Evaluate systems in

context of building

program

The essay vaguely establishes a

relationship between the systems and

the building program.

The essay recognizes the relationship

between systems and the building

program, but the relationship is weak.

The essay correctly discusses the

systems in context of the building

program.

The essay meaningfully discusses the

systems in context of the building

program.

Evaluate systems in

context of building

size

The essay vaguely establishes a

relationship between the systems and

the building size.

The essay recognizes the relationship

between systems and the building

size, but establishes no thumb rule.

The essay correctly discusses the

systems in context of building size and

derives a thumb rule, but not for all

systems.

The essay meaningfully discusses the

systems in context of building size and

logically derives a thumb rule for all

systems.

Effectiveness of

argument and

evidence

The essay attempts at constructing an

argument, though there is a lack of

consistency. The evidence of

drawings, photographs or other

building examples is weak and limited.

The essay demonstrates an

arguments, though it may lack clarity

at times. There is a demonstrable use

of drawings, photographs and other

building examples to support the

argument most of times.

The essay has a clear line of

arguments that is sustained

throughout. The arguments are

supported with rational drawings,

photographs and other building

examples.

The essay provides an insightful line

of arguments that is consistently

persuasive. The arguments are well

supported with meaningful drawings,

photographs and other building

examples.

Measuring Evaluation Skills Design Charrette | 20