CritIMPACT - A Case Study

Table of contents

Purpose

p. 5

Introduction

p. 5

Background

p. 6

Course design and preparations

p. 8

Staff professional development

p. 15

Student profile

p. 15

Research question and methodology

p. 16

Description of how plan was implemented

p. 17

Discussion

p. 21

Leadership and management

p. 32

Conclusions

p. 35

Appendix one (Final course evaluation) Appendix two (Transcript of fifth SL session) Appendix three (Students’ Wiggio texts)

A case study focussing on CritIMPACT, a CLIL course in its initial phase of development

Purpose The purpose of this case study is: a) to document how the university École nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais planned for and implemented an experimental CLIL (content and language integrated learning) English-language course in virtual architecture and design in the early stages of the European Project ARCHI21; b) to discuss the management and pedagogical practices that have contributed to or possibly undermined the teaching of this CLIL course; c) to discuss if and how this initial experience can contribute to the integration of CLIL courses into the curriculum of post-secondary institutions.

Introduction The ARCHI21 Project aims to have students use 3D virtual immersive and Web 2.0 environments in blended settings for the purpose of exploring, critiquing and experimenting with architectural and design concepts. By adopting a CLIL approach, ARCHI21 seeks to support university students in learning both architectural and design content matter through an additional language.

ARCHI21 involves six institutional partners in four countries. ARCHI21 is cofinanced by the European Commission (Lifelong Learning Programme, Transversal Programme, Key Activity 2: Languages) and the Coordinator, École nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais (France) and its partners: Centre international d'études pédagogiques (France), The Open University (UK), University of Ljubljana (Slovenia), Aalborg University (Denmark), University of Southampton (UK). The project began in November 2010 and is to be completed in October 2012.

This case study focuses on one 11-week École nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais course entitled ‘CritIMPACT’.

This 11-week course with one contact period (90 minutes) per week was offered through the medium of English to French-speaking students from February to June, 2011 by the Communication and Language Skills Department.

5

The course was divided into two parts: a) six 90-minute sessions of language and other preparatory work in anticipation of the second part of the course b) five 90-minute sessions in the Second Life (SL) virtual environment.

The course was co-ordinated by a language coach. The language coach taught the first part of the course. An architect working at a distance with the language coach and students taught the second part of the course.

First, this case study describes in broad brushstrokes the ARCHI21 project.

Second, the case study reviews the design of and preparations for the CritIMPACT course. It then profiles its students and instructors. Methodology used to conduct the case study is presented. Delivery of the course is described. A discussion, which integrates data from a final student evaluation questionnaire, transcripts of three SL sessions and other sources, is undertaken. This data is triangulated with intentions described in plans and other project documents. Lessons learnt are discussed and conclusions drawn.

Background ARCHI21 investigates architectural education, content integrated language learning and the potential for 3D immersive virtual environments, social networking and Web 2.0 technologies to support and enhance transdisciplinary learning in tertiary-level architectural education. Project partners are expected to undertake various exploratory and experimental studies to gauge the applicability and ultimate effectiveness of implementing CLIL at the tertiary level using these digital environments.

The École nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais undertook to refocus the content of an existing English-medium communication and language skills course so that it would take into account the demands of ARCHI21. The course entitled CritIMPACT is the focus of this case study.

To aid the explanation of this document the following clarifications are offered : in-house language teacher refers to a member of institutional staff who has experience working with content teachers and students. In-house language teachers have experience working with students and in most case experience in working with content teachers. The in-house language teacher is also referred to as language coach in this document. external language mediator refers to a person trained by Southampton University in CLIL and CYBERGOGY during the ARCHI21 project. This person is not a member of the institutional staff and mediates between the students and the teacher as an external language teacher with particular emphasis upon language acquisition and resolving language difficulties.

Some mediators have a technical expertise being well versed in in-world teaching techniques and most mediators are language teachers. External 6

language mediators had no prior understanding of the architectural discipline and were not involved in planning learning sessions. content teacher refers to teachers of architecture or design in partner institutions and those content experts working with partner institutions. The content teacher is also referred to as architect in this document.

The CritIMPACT course, which was designated as a language class in the university institution’s programme, was led by an in-house language teacher working at a distance with an architect, the content teacher. CritIMPACT was planned as an exploratory blended course intended to integrate the learning of a foreign language (English) and virtual architectural design content.

Learning was to be supported by the use of information and communication technologies.

The in-house language teacher, who taught communication and language skills courses at the university, and a practising architect, the content teacher, sought: 1) to collaboratively co-design a trans-disciplinary course integrating English as a foreign language and architectural design, 2) to collaboratively raise awareness of the use of three-dimensional immersive technologies or 'virtual worlds' as working tools and creative design spaces, and 3) to collaboratively foster the learning of English.

The in-house language teacher had extensive experience in technologyenhanced teaching and learning including in virtual worlds. The practising architect and content teacher was experienced in the design of 3D immersive environments and specialised in the use of virtual worlds and gaming both in his practice and in architectural education.

The first part of the course (six 90-minute sessions) was to be conducted primarily face-to-face. The in-house language teacher was to be the only instructor. This part of the course was to support students in developing the language skills needed to successfully function in the second part of the course. In addition, students were to be familiarised with the virtual environment Second Life (SL) and were to be required to use the Web 2.0 tool Wiggio which is a private group collaboration platform (www.wiggio.com) The second part of the course was to be conducted in the virtual environment Second Life (SL). The content teacher was to take the lead in teaching the SL sessions and the in-house language teacher was to act as a facilitator. SL sessions were to focus on learners’ exploration, critique and discussion of virtual architectural concepts and design whilst working with (an) architect(s) and on one occasion with a client. The content teacher and the in-house language teacher were to give greater attention to collaborative knowledge creation than to the teaching of advanced SL building skills. The SL environment was to become the topic of inquiry, being the artefact of discovery and exploration in the sense-making process itself, serving as a 7

creative, collaborative and social space. During this second part of the course students were also required to use Open Design Studio which is an Open University asynchronous community platform. In addition, students were to be encouraged to use the following optional tools: Flickr - online project photo sharing application (www.flickr.com); and, Twitter - online project microblogging service (https://twitter.com).

Students were to be assessed using a 20-point scale. To obtain the course credit students were expected to score a minimum of 10 out of 20 with 50% of the points assigned based on continuous assessment, 30% based on a final reflective essay and 20% based on attendance. Continuous assessment was to consist of participation, staying on topic, cooperation, communication, and active engagement. Criteria for assessment in this experimental course were to be explained at the beginning of the course to students.

Course design and preparations The first part of the course (six 90-minute sessions) was designed by the École nationale supÊrieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais language coach.

The second part of the course (five 90-minute sessions) was designed collaboratively by the language coach in Paris and the lead architect (content teacher) in the USA. Approximately 15 hours was invested by both the language coach and the lead architect into designing the five SL sessions. A Wiki1 was used to capture the lesson design and planning. Conversations took place through Skype2, in SL and by telephone. In addition to the 15 hours of collaborative planning, a large number of hours were invested individually by both the language coach and architect.

A key component in the preparations involved the construction of the virtual learning space or 'home base' in SL. Joint planning time was used to codesign, map out and prepare an inventory of objects (prims3) that would be used during the five SL sessions.

1

A Wiki is a website that allows users to add and update content on the site using their own Web browser.

2 Skype is an Internet telephony service provider that offers free calling between computers.

2 Skype is an Internet telephony service provider that offers free calling between computers.

3 Prims are 3D polygonal shapes used to create single- or multi-part objects for in-world 3D modelling

8

In planning activities for this second part of the course, the language coach and architect agreed to take into account the following pedagogical principles put forth by Sanders and Melton4:          

Asking questions and correcting misperceptions; Stimulating background knowledge and expertise; Capitalizing on the presence of others; Facilitating interactions and encouraging community; Supporting distributed cognition; Sharing tools and resources; Encouraging exploration and discovery; Delineating context and goals to act upon; Fostering reflective practice; and, Utilizing technology to achieve and disseminate results.

The intended learning outcomes were : Intended language outcomes Students:  will sustain a 6-week English-language written dialogue with their classmates in the Wiggio environment;  will capture in written form the language (words, terms, expressions, phrases, structures) used to discuss and critique the experience of working in SL and using Web 2.0 tools.

4Sanders,

R. L. and Melton, S. J. (2010). The AETZone Experience: A Qualitative Analysis of the Use of Presence Pedagogy in a 3D Immersive Learning Environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6 (1) 62-70.

9

Intended content outcomes including information and communications technologies Students:  can build basic architectural structures using SL prims and textures (images, text, builds);  can operate multiple SL communication channels;  can use SL tools such as taking snapshots and teleporting;  will use Wiggio as a group learning environment;  will use Open Design Studio to post and discuss SL assignments;  will have assessed the 3D and Web 2.0 experience as it relates to their learning of architectural content and language.

The six 90-minute lessons, which constituted the first part of the course, were planned to take place as follows.

Week 1: Theme: CritIMPACT course introduction and explanation of how learning would be approached. Students were to be given directions in how to use the Wiggio. This was to include a demonstration of its use.

Week 2: Theme: Virtuality and virtual spaces. Activity 1: Defining virtuality and virtual spaces - open discussion. Activity 2: Critiquing selected reading from a blog (http://virtualspacetheory.com/) and a book (The Architecture of Virtual Space by Or Ettlinger). Aim: Critical thinking and analysis, and language comprehension. Assignment (independent work to be undertaken after the session): Focus on expanded reading of blog and contributing to written group discussion in Wiggio to articulate and formulate their own definition of virtuality and virtual space. Challenge: Engaging students in critical and analytical thinking, and ensuring language comprehension (reading) and production (writing) in online discussion with peers.

Week 3: Theme: Virtual worlds. Activity 1: Class and individual feedback on online discussion week-2 assignment (content and language). Activity 2: Assessing through discussion students’ current knowledge, attitude towards and usage of virtual world technologies. Language focus: Terminology, giving opinions, agreeing/disagreeing, expressing meaning. Assignment: Exploring 'virtual worlds' through an Internet search and prepare for providing feedback orally in the following session.

Week 4: Theme: 'Social Virtual Worlds'. Activity 1: Whole class discussion of week-3 assignment findings. Activity 2: Introduction to 'social virtual worlds' (websites, video, language specific to the SL environment) and discussion.

Assignment: Individual research focusing on virtual world technology used in architectural practice and education with results to be presented orally in next session (written feedback in Wiggio optional).

Week 5: Theme: Preparation for SL site visits. Activity 1: Whole class discussion and feedback based on research from week-five assignment (content and language focus). Activity 2: Language coach demonstrates how to set up an account in SL and students create their account and their avatar 10

(a graphical representation of the SL user). In-house language teacher demonstrates how ‘to set home' to CritIMPACT, which involves students logging into the CritIMPACT virtual space in SL. Week 6: Theme: SL induction. Activity 1: Introduction to other ARCHI21 students' work in SL. Activity 2: Induction course for self-access and joining CritIMPACT in-world group. Assignment: Students explore ARCHI21 resources and report in writing on their experience in the Wiggio.

Three optional one-hour evening sessions were planned for students to receive further support in how to operate in SL with external language mediators . These sessions were to be offered by the ARCHI21 Project partner, Southampton University.

The five SL sessions, which constituted the second part of the course, were planned to take place as follows.

Resources (websites, site background information, images, text) were to be provided in the students’ own private learning space (Wiggio) and in-world (SL CritIMPACT home base) before each session. After each session, further documentation including visited slurls (web links provided in SL environment), session snapshots and chat logs were to be posted by the language coach to the Wiggio and/or Flickr spaces for reference. When possible, audio and video recordings were to be made. An assignment was to be given for each session including visual referencing and text commentary on the Open Design Studio space. A final assignment (reflective essay) and a course evaluation questionnaire were to be given.

Week 7 (SL Session 1): The first of these five SL sessions was planned as an introduction to the use of the SL environment and was to be conducted by the architect/content teacher. Students were primarily expected to follow the architect through this environment, but were to be given an opportunity to interact with both the architect and the language coach. This was to include: camera skills; the introduction to an interactive, self guided educational project that teaches visitors about architectural fundamentals, design processes, strategies and best practices for creating effective virtual world projects; synchronous real-time building of the negotiated ‘home base’ (meeting point, resource area) for the CritIMPACT group. Students were to be given full permission to modify and add to the CritIMPACT build in SL and the right to enhance the design of the CritIMPACT ‘home base’.

The remaining four SL sessions involved four in-world sites where students were to explore, critique and analyse. Specific activities were designed for each session specific to each in-world site. Each of these four sessions was to begin with a warm-up for 5-10 minutes, followed by several sets of activities which were to last for 15-20 minutes.

11

Week 8 (SL Session 2): Theme: SL Prototyping for a Construction-Bound Project.

Context: a 2008 SL virtual architectural simulation of a hospital to be built on the Palomar West Medical Campus in San Diego. The hospital was later constructed, opening in 2012.

Aim: To introduce, explore and critique the virtual architectural simulation which enabled clients, project stakeholders and community members to understand and explore a design concept before planned construction began.

Objectives: Students were to critique the design by: - discovering, comparing and discussing the concepts and methods used to create the model; - perceiving the utility of the immersive virtual model; - offering improvements to the design; - evaluating the usefulness of the virtual model.

Assignment: How do you think a virtual model might grow to augment physical buildings? How might the fragility of this dynamic and ever-changing virtual environment be leveraged as a useful tool to help add value - rather than remaining an unchanging artefact as rigid and unchanging as its physical counterpart? Choose one snapshot to represent your answer to the above question and add a comment to answer the above question. Post this to the Open Design Studio. Comment on other images posted by students.

Week 9 (SL Session 3): Theme: Design Concept Visualisation.

Context: Interpretation of architect's (TEN Arquitectos firm) schematic plans, sections and illustrations to produce a commissioned 1:1 scale, exterior only, virtual model replica for faculty and students to experience the design of a new faculty under consideration.

Aim: To explore and critique the commissioned virtual model replica and interview the client.

Objectives: Students were to critique the design by: - exploring and evaluating the design, and; Students were to interview the client to: - determine the reasoning for a virtual model; 12

- assess the value of a virtual model; - predict the long-term utility of a virtual model.

Assignment: From the pictures taken during the session, choose only one image which in your opinion represents an element of the design which is the most important to you and give critical text evaluation of that element in the Open Design Studio. Comment on other images posted by students.

Week 10 (SL Session 4): Theme: Creative Medium for Artistic Expression and Architecture.

Context: LOCUS, a 'working studio', designed by Second Life Architect, Artist and Photographer, DB Bailey XX Architect in Real Life, former principal in Frank Gehry's firm. LOCUS reflects unique affordances of the technology and its multidimensionality (user-created content, 3D sculpting, sound, light, motion, etc).

Aim: To experience the immersion in design-orientated aesthetic experimentation of a working studio.

Objectives: Students were to critique the design by: - exploring, discovering, comparing and discussing the concepts and methods used in the design and conception; - evaluating the usefulness of the virtual space; and, Students were to interview the architect to: - determine the function of LOCUS; - seek design and conceptual clarification.

Assignment: From the pictures taken during the session, choose only one image which in your opinion represents an element of the design which is the most important to you and give critical text evaluation of that element in the Open Design Studio. Comment on other images posted by students.

Week 11 (SL Session 4): Theme: Participatory Design in Hybrid Architecture.

Context: Active participation in the design of a commissioned virtual counterpart (not a replica) of an existing physical building.

Aim: To actively participate towards the design of a food court.

Objectives: Students were to contribute to the final design of a food court by: - comparing and discussing the overall design of the virtual counterpart to the site visited previously in SL session 3 - reflecting upon, discussing and determining the concept and benefits of participatory design - providing specific architectural design input for alterations and/or modifications to the food court only Students were to lead an open discussion to - seek clarification upon aspects of virtual architectural design - discuss concerns regarding technical aspects - consider the potential opportunities of 3D immersive virtual technologies in architectural design practice and education Assignment: From the pictures taken during the session, choose only one image which in your opinion represents an element of the design which is the most important to you and give critical text evaluation of that element in the Open Design Studio. Comment on other images posted by students.

13

Table 1 is an example of the planning done for the SL sessions. It is an example of the thought and care invested into course preparation.

Table 1: Breakdown of planning for SL session number five copied in from Wiki.5 Step 1: Warm-up (5-10 mins) Elicit Vocabulary: Walk students to Rutger's Business School plan (in sandbox). The language coach to instruct students to move their avatar to a chosen word (in bold) on the plan as quickly as possible. The architect to check on the comprehension of the word. (The architect to do both if the language coach is sorting students out).

Dept Cluster / Breakout rooms / lounge / support / teaching room / retail plaza / lobby / access stairs / lounge study area / interior garden / lockers / admin / core / covered plaza / computer lounge / library / cafeteria / exterior garden / 45 person classroom / 60 person classroom / tiered 60 person lecture hall / tiered 100 person lecture hall / trading room / Admin/Dean's suite / Rockafellar Avenue / 500 person auditorium / overlook / kitchen / lounge/study area / open plaza / Step 2 : Visit + Critique (15 mins) Teleport to Kelley School of Business site http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Kelley%20Schl%20Indianapolis/2 05/178/23 Invite students to walk and fly around the exterior for 5 minutes alone and then come back to meeting point at entrance to answer two questions: Invite students to critique/discuss : How does this design compare with the Rutgers School of Business?

How do the structural systems compare? (curtain wall versus load bearing walls) Step 3 : Participatory Process (20 mins) 1. [architect] to lower floor plan into space.

2. [architect] - 'Hybrid Architecture - a cross between replica versus virtual freedoms 3. Question to students: What in your opinion does participatory design mean?

How is community participation different?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of community participation?

Architect to talk briefly on the below Kelley School of Business commissioned a virtual counterpart to their physical facility. The initial goal was to build a replica of their iconic Campus Center 5

The names of the in-house language teacher and architect (content teacher) have been removed from the orginal text, otherwise this table consitutes an exact replica of the session five plan.

14

building on their campus in Indianapolis. During the design process, a 'hybrid architecture' approach was proposed, and eventually realized on their island in Second Life. Instead of building an exact replica of the Campus Center, the virtual counterpart would include just enough of the architectural elements of the Campus Center for it to retain its iconic and familiar character, but to also take advantage of the native or inherent opportunities of working and learning in a virtual world. Without gravity, or elements to protect from, the virtual building could be much more open, and include green rooftop terraces and more. The plaza in front of the building was used to create an open air amphitheater that doesn't exist in the real world facility, but also borrows design elements from the physical Campus Center. The interior was purposely left empty - in order to leave room for students and faculty members to customize the space to suite their specific needs. By enabling those who use the virtual building to customize it, they then retain a stronger sense of ownership and the space is more likely to remain dynamic changing over time as students add their own decorations. The virtual build will be opening in June, 2011.

Anecdote : Philip, Linden Labs: Where's the kitchen? Importance of social and community spaces/objects evoking sense of community and social gathering Step 4 : Participatory Design in Real Time (15-20 mins) Food Court : Student design input + synchronous alterations, modifications.

IMPORTANT: student input will be reported to the client. Potential design could become an integral part of final model if client likes the end result.

Step 5 : Open Discussion (20-30 mins) Q/A session (student lead).

Concerns/Opportunities.

Assignments

Staff professional development Both the university deputy director, in charge of pedagogy, and the language coach received 1.5 days of training in the principles of CLIL. The content teacher, working at a distance, did not receive any CLIL training.

Student profile In total, 17 students participated in this second-year university course. The students included:  

15 native French speakers, 2 non-French speakers (1 Spanish & 1 Lebanese).

15

The students’ English language oral skills were assessed by the language coach as ranging from lower intermediate to upper intermediate. Reading and writing skills ranged from upper intermediate to lower advanced.

All students were familiar with 3D modelling (Rhino), but all were novice users of SL. One student had participated in a workshop using SL6. Some students had gaming experience.

Research question and methodology Research question This case study explores the management and pedagogical practices that have contributed to or possibly undermined the teaching of this experimental CLIL course offered by the university in order to make some of the learning gained through the development and implementation of the course available for use in further CLIL courses development.

Methodology The case study was constructed based on the analysis of the CritIMPACT course and the following documents and recordings: 

 



   

the 147-page application (Architectural and Design-based Education and Practice through Content & Language Integrated Learning using Immersive Virtual Environments for 21st Century Skills) submitted in 2010 by project partners to the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme; ARCHI21 2011 Report: Action 2 - WP4 ENSAPM Local Actions (7,956 words); a 2012 published article (6,515 words). Immersive Architecture and Design : Weaving Authentic Content, Professional Practice, 3D Virtual Worlds and Language Learning in Higher Education. Proceedings of 4th Annual International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, pp. 3851-3860. ISBN: 978-84-695-3491-5 a 14-slide Power Point presentation, EDULEARN 2012, entitled Immersive Architecture and Design : Weaving Authentic Content, Professional Practice, 3D Virtual Worlds and Language Learning in Higher Education an electronic rendering of students’ written responses to a three-part course evaluation questionnaire7 the Wiki used to collaboratively plan the course; students' reflective essays; a sample of writing from all students taken from the Wiggio space;

6

a five-day intensive design studio workshop entitled Building Fragile Spaces in the ARCHI21 framework 7 See appendix # 1 for a copy of the evaluation instrument given to students.

16

   

a sample of student writing and related feedback from course instructors taken from the Open Design Studio space; transcripts based on sound recordings of three of the five SL sessions; one sound recording picked at random to check for the accuracy of the transcription; group chat logs for the five SL sessions.

Description of how plan was implemented First part of course The six 90-minute sessions which constituted the first part of the course and the five 90-minute sessions which constituted the second part of the course took place as planned. No students availed themselves of the additional optional three sessions to familiarise themselves further with SL. At the time, students reported that they felt comfortable working in SL and did not require additional support sessions.

The first six sessions, which took place in a standard classroom, focused on having students discuss the concepts which they would need to draw on during the SL sessions and aimed to scaffold the language and content in preparation for the SL sessions.

The students were informed that the course was experimental and in the course they would be exploring the concepts of virtuality and virtual space, and that to do so the course would be divided into two parts: a) six sessions to explore and prepare for the second part of the course in SL, b) five SL sessions with an architect (content teacher) and the language coach.

The students were also told they would meet one guest architect and one client during the SL sessions. The verbal and non-verbal responses to the introduction of the course all seemed to be positive with several students stating their approval of what was planned whilst others expressed their excitement.

The students were informed that their assessment for this experimental course would be based on continual assessment, including class participation, planned assignments in Wiggio and ODS (OpenDesignStudio), plus attendance and a final 500-word reflective essay. They were further informed that a course evaluation questionnaire would be completed at the end of the course and was not part of the assessment grade. Discussion and suggestions guided students ‘to how and why and what' they should be looking for and thinking about for when they do their assignments.

The language coach reported taking a dialogic teaching approach, and seeking to make the classroom inclusive but purposeful, engaging (students) productively, building on and making coherent contributions and sharing, through scaffolded argumentation and dialogue, fostering a learner-centred environment, and building on students’ current content knowledge. The 17

language coach encourages oral interaction from all students, is flexible and deals with just-in-time language learning and content side-tracking where it is relevant.

The following four sessions of the first part of the course were described as taking place as planned. On average 15 students were present for each of the six part-one sessions. Students generally speaking arrived on time and lessons took place as planned.

The second part of the course Prior to the SL sessions, the language coach stressed the need for students to attend and participate in the synchronous SL sessions and pointed out that the architect was operating in a different time zone starting the sessions at 07:00 am whilst the students were attending their sessions at 14:00. On average 11 students attended each session.

SL sessions took place in two computer labs simultaneously instead of one as originally planned. The students had to be divided up in two computer labs (on different floors) for all SL sessions as the university did not have a lab available that was large enough to accommodate the entire group at the time required. The language coach guided the students onto the task in the two different rooms. The extent of the technical challenges this posed quickly became apparent. The architect was in another country, but present in SL during the sessions.

After the SL sessions began, the students who were in the room with the language coach asked questions when they had language issues or were faced with technical difficulties such as logging in or moving their avatar. As for the students in the other computer lab, the language coach monitored the screen dealing with apparent problems such as inactive or logged out avatars by using the chat function. When a problem could not be solved through the chat function, the language coach would go to the other computer lab. This impeded the language coach's ability to provide continuous language support in SL during the sessions.

In the first SL session, the architect introduced the students to SL. The architect only spoke English. Students primarily followed the architect through this environment and were given the opportunity to interact with both the architect and the language coach. The introduction to SL included: camera skills; design processes, strategies and best practices for creating effective virtual world projects; synchronous real-time building of the negotiated ‘home base’ (meeting point, resource area) for the CritIMPACT group. Students were given full permission to modify and add to the CritIMPACT build in SL and the right to enhance the design of the CritIMPACT ‘home base’.

During each of the following four SL sessions students were to capture a picture from SL and post it with their input in their Open Design Studio space (see Table 2). Students could see each other’s work and comment on it. The architect and the language coach also wrote comments on this space. The 18

exchange in Table 2 shows that Open Design Studio has a great potential for fostering student reflection and communication with in this case the architect.

Unfortunately most students did not complete their assignments on time so they did not receive the benefit of feedback.

Table 2: One sample of student work from the OpenDesignStudio space which was posted on time

The primary means of language support provided during the synchronous SL sessions was in the form of recasting (language coach mirroring back a corrected version of a student’s incorrect utterance) or through the language coach providing prompts (clues about how students could do self-repair) or explicit corrections. Students also negotiated meaning by asking for clarification, and supporting each other. The excerpts below (see Table 3) 19

provide evidence of the reported practices, but are not evidence of their widespread use.

Table 3: Excerpts from SL session showing recasting, explicit correction, student questions and explanations SL session transcript of dialogue Student 16: It makes me think of a moskay, you know what I mean?

Language Coach: A mosque?

Student 16: A mosque! [...]

Student 1: Sorry, are you saying teared like (she spells) TEARED? I don’t ..

Architect: No, TIERED (spells) Student 1: TIER (she spells) you mean it’s divided? Where? I, I don’t know, sorry.

Language Coach: Look in the text. Tiered. Yeah, tiered Student 16: Is it like divided in three pieces? Or something like that?

SL session group chat log written during the above SL session dialogue 1. [2011/05/19 05:23] Language Coach: tiered 2. [2011/05/19 05:24] Student: can you write it>?

3. [2011/05/19 05:24] Student: ok 4. [2011/05/19 05:24] Language Coach: tiered 5. [2011/05/19 05:24] Architect: tiered 6. [2011/05/19 05:25] Language Coach: Look over here

There is some evidence that students used the SL sessions to engage with the architect(s) in a vigorous exchange in order to negotiate meaning. This involved asking questions, seeking further clarification of content concepts, and feeling comfortable enough to challenge, to show frustration and to possibly cut off the architect (in this case the guest architect) when a point was understood (see Table 4). It should be noted that it was a minority of students who engaged in this manner and rarely to the same extent as seen in this excerpt.

Table 4: Excerpt from SL session four S1: Well I think it’s really nice like I love the colours but I’m always wondering when you say it’s a picture, you mean it’s like a 3D eh plan like how does it how does it look like? It looks like a 3D model I mean. Why ( overlap DB: yes) do you always keep saying that (overlap DB (Guest architect): but but no it’s not,) a picture DB: It’s actually a Bernini statue in the Borgese in Rome (overlap Jude: yes) it’s a very famous statue and what I did when I was there was I took a picture of the hand on this woman’s back and that’s all it is. It’s just a photograph but because the photograph has a lot of 3 dimensional shading to it, it gives the impression of it being 3 dimensional here when in fact it’s just a 2 dimensional texture map. The it’s been applied (squeak in background) to forms that have been distorted(more squeaks and animated laughter) and then have been given this eh the movement, a script that makes it move.

S1: OK, uhm what I’m wondering about these columns for example. These are not inspired by the hand, right? That’s another eh like another lead, it’s a different picture in it, right? The columns behind DB: Yes. Yes; These are these are different hands than the first ones you saw. The first ones you saw were my wife’s hands and these are eh of a Bernini statue (he raises his voice as if this is evident) S1: Ja ja ja ja no I get that. But I mean the space. It’s not all the hand it’s not all hand I mean it’s like you invent this architectural eh place with (DB: overlap hum in agreement) columns and you add these hands to it like uhm. It’s I think it’s two different types of eh architecture, isn’t it?

20

DB: Ye Yes. The columns in here I think made of let me take a look I think they’re made of this the armoire photograph.

S1: So, OK. Even the columns are made out of photograph?

DB: I think they’re made yes they’re made out of the eh photograph of the armoire.

S1: uhhum (sounds most like this – accepts but puzzled)

Challenges in using ICT occurred during most of the sessions. Some headsets used by students during the SL sessions did not function properly impeding their ability to understand and participate. In addition, sound problems were ongoing with a crackling sound being omnipresent – an irritant that occasionally impeded comprehension. Although the computer labs were reserved just for course participants, other students wandered into the labs during the sessions. This acted as a distracting factor drawing students’ attention away from participating in the SL sessions. The final SL session was unfortunately cut short by the university institution losing its connection with SL. All of the 90-minute SL sessions were reduced to 50-60 minutes due to the late arrival of students. Logging into SL and checking sound for the late arrivals took time thus reducing the time for planned activities.

Two extra office hours, each lasting 2 hours, were set up towards the end of the course to assist learners in completing their assignments. Two students availed themselves of this opportunity on one occasion and another student did so on two occasions.

Discussion Course Design and Construction A substantial investment was made into constructing the learning environment by the language coach for the first part of the course. The first part of the course involved readings and other resources to generate discussions about the topics of virtuality and virtual space and the use of virtual world technologies in architectural practice and education. During the first part of the course sessions were dominated by student discussion. As a homework assignment students wrote short dialogic peer-to-peer texts in their Wiggio space about the concepts of virtuality and virtual spaces. Writing is likely to have reinforced concepts discussed in class and to have provided students with an opportunity to formulate and defend a personal stance in front of their peers. Finally, during the first part of the course students were inducted into SL. Considerable architectural design-related content was integrated into this first part of the course. This can be seen as an effort to integrate meaningful content about architecture into the language course. As authentic learning is inextricably tied to the individual and his or her interests, and to his or her engagement in the learning process, the first part of the course appears to have created an authentic learning environment for these 17 students of architecture. In addition, by providing students with opportunities for reading, writing and discussion about virtual architectural spaces, and by offering an 21

introduction to SL, the first part of the course helped students to prepare for the second part of the course.

The language coach and the architect invested a minimum of 15 hours into collaboratively planning the second part of the course. Many more hours were invested individually into preparations to teach the course. The virtual learning environment created for the students involved architectural projects that had been commissioned by clients and non-commissioned work. The 3-D immersive applications and tools shared with the students had been used by architects in their work. Students were given an opportunity to explore and critique those architectural projects. Students were also given an opportunity to speak in English with several architects and a client about those projects that had been undertaken. All in all, the second part of the CritIMPACT course was imbued with authentic architectural content, and with opportunities for students to partake in authentic dialogue.

Architectural Culture and Ethnomethodological Analysis An ethnomethodological perspective to transcribe, inspect and analyse three available SL recordings and related chat logs was undertaken by the language coach, aligned with language-in-use as a social phenomenon and not traditional linguistic conversation analysis. Introducing a new technology (3D immersive virtual worlds) was considered to be a breaching experience in the normal routine of the architectural students involved in this study. A further breaching experience was for the students to adopt the role of critic.

An ethnomethodological analysis can allow for practical social activity, awareness raising, collaboration and contributions within activities to be captured for inspection and analysis. The aim was to explicate methods (or ethnomethods) applied by relatively inexperienced users of the SL environment as they engaged in the meaning-making processes to understand practices of virtual architecture and design in and through English as a medium. The topics of study were the methods used by members (here referring to architect(s), students of architecture and the in-house language 22

teacher) in the practical reasoning, actions, sense-making, referencing, describing and explaining of and within actions and activities.

However, given the specific setting, it only provided partial insights of the contribution to knowledge-building in and through language-in-use to accomplish and account for common-sense practices and common-sense knowledge.

Architectural education is constituted of observation, reflection and analysis.

This thinking process is not recordable. Reflection-in-action in architectural education requires ‘silences’ and these instances must be recognized as such. Enforcing language production in these moments can be detrimental to the whole learning process. Furthermore, the advantage of the SL environment is the visual and immersive representation of the virtual artefacts.

These students are highly visual. This may have explained some lack of text or verbal input from some students and moments of silence or ‘reflection-inaction’.

These short in-world actions may have been experienced as cognitively chaotic by some in the convergence of the language of architecture, the language of learning, the additional language of English, the language of SL terminology and the ability to function within the technology itself. In this particular setting, silences may also have been due to language barriers, technological usage, learner attitude and style and motivation.

The retrospective reflective essays, however, fully demonstrated students’ raised awareness to practices within this environment, highlighting the positive benefits of working and learning with expert practitioners in an additional language.

Questions for consideration are: ‘which content course or part of a content course is most appropriate for a CLIL approach?’ and 'which technology is most appropriate to support a CLIL approach?'

Students' Course Evaluation All 14 students answering the final course evaluation questionnaire stated that they enjoyed the CritIMPACT course. This was not only reflected in a direct question about enjoyment levels but is reflected in numerous answers to open-ended questions. The language coach and the architect also stated that they enjoyed the course. In their final 500+-word reflective essays on the course, students analysed the benefits, weaknesses, and potential of SL for their architectural studies. This implies that students engaged mentally with the software and the learning experience. Over half mentioned one of the architects by name which can be considered further evidence of engagement.

Only one reference was made in the essays on language learning and in that case it was to explain that language learning was not a priority for that student. All in all, the students’ focus in their essays was on architecture and the use of SL. This is what they engaged with through the medium of English,

23

and thus the course can be seen as a successful opportunity to integrate meaningful architectural content into a language course.

The learning environment created by the language coach and the architect was also rich enough that students engaged with it outside of class time. For example, 71.4% of respondents reported that they used SL resources between sessions and 92.9% consulted the Wiggio from throughout the course. These can be considered as further measures of the success of the course.

Most students (85%) reported seeing the potential benefits of 3D immersive environments including SL as evidenced by the following extracts.

With the CritIMPACT sessions, I was able to build 3D models, visit buildings, interact with objects, it was really rewarding and a very special experience for an English class.

The thing I learned in these sessions was how SL could be used to link an architect with his client or different architects, to share a virtual model and work on it in a collaborative way.

I liked the idea of experimenting and being able to “be” in your project and feel how it would be to live in it I had no idea we could create complexe spaces.

During this learning experience in Second Life, my knowledge and my opinion about this virtual world have changed. I learned to discover a new aspect of it; in fact, I have seen uses of it I could not imagine before It is however, noteworthy that 71% stated that they would not consider using SL in their own university design studio projects. Fifty per cent of the total population criticised SL for various reasons. It was deemed ‘not powerful 24

enough’, ‘less intuitive’ than other softwares, ‘not developed enough’, not ‘very well defined, ‘too complicated to create and modelise’ and ‘not precise enough’ and dependent on the Internet with its associated security risks. All students analysed in their final essays to a lesser or greater extent the benefits, drawbacks and potential of SL. These student comments show that the students did achieve one of the primary planned learning outcomes which was to become aware of the concepts of virtuality and the potential affordances of a virtual space such as SL. In the final evaluation questionnaire students were also asked whether they improved their language skills based on the immersive experience in SL. No students made mention of written language. However, 78% reported improved listening skills, 50% vocabulary, and 21% speaking skills. One student reported no perceived improvement. Two students reported not having participated sufficiently.

Students considered the language support and scaffolding in the SL synchronous sessions was sufficient and that no further support in addition to the assignment details given in advance of the SL sessions was necessary.

Eight students (57%) referred to multitasking, using electronic dictionaries or translation tools. One student reported appreciating seeing difficult words typed using the chat function: ‘I liked having the difficult word written as the speaker talked and don’t think I needed more.’ Another student reported 'I think the mix between writing and speaking was quite complete.' The students’ responses, an analysis of their written work and the SL transcripts indicate that the students in general had a sufficient command of English to communicate their thoughts at least in writing. It does, however, appear that students did require further support or opportunities to engage orally during the SL sessions (see discussion below).

Students made suggestions for future course improvement. Just over half of the students referred to ways of increasing their own student participation.

This included references to making a greater effort to speak on their part in the synchronous SL sessions, to creating opportunities for dialogue with 25

students at another university, to the use of videoconferencing so one can see the person one is speaking to as opposed to an avatar, and to wishing to have opportunities for one-on-one dialogue with the architect, and to building something more advanced in SL. Another suggestion was for more warm-up sessions focusing on specific vocabulary terms.

I really enjoyed the session when we were walking on the drawing of a floor plan and (architect) and (language coach) were quizzing us on different spaces....... As for technical architecture terms in english, I feel we could have done more little 'breaks' like the quizz (the architect) and (language coach) did.

One student suggested fewer but longer SL sessions with face-to-face opportunities to discuss them after each session. This final suggestion could potentially provide students with an opportunity to analyse the SL experience and for all involved to bring learning from that SL experience forward in shaping the next SL session. It could potentially provide a greater opportunity for the students to co-construct the learning environment, and perhaps increase their participation.

These suggestions support the post-course analysis reported by the coaches and implies that were the course to be repeated, it would be advisable to consider ways of increasing students’ participation and engagement during and in-between the SL sessions.

Learning from the Recorded SL Sessions The remainder of the discussion will focus on the three recorded SL sessions transcribed by the language coach (see above section Architectural culture and ethnomethodological analysis). One transcript was compared with one sound recording and this indicated that the transcript was an accurate written representation of what could be heard on the recording. This was taken as evidence of the accuracy of all three transcriptions.

In the three transcripts of the SL sessions, no intended learning outcomes or goals are stated. Intended learning outcomes or goals had been stated at the beginning of this second part of the course, in the first SL session and were posted each week in advance of the SL session in the Wiggio. During the three recorded SL sessions these outcomes were not returned to in order to assess progress in achieving them. They were implicitly returned to and assessed when the architect and others reacted to what students posted in Open Design Studio. Explicitly returning to and discussing progress in meeting intended learning outcomes could potentially have been beneficial in reflecting on and discussing how the sessions could have been used more effectively.

The transcripts indicate that dialogue during these three SL sessions was dominated by first and foremost the architect and the guests, and to a lesser extent by the language coach (the coaches). On average during SL sessions three and four approximately 94% of all words in the transcript were spoken 26

by the coaches whilst during the final fifth session this figure stood at approximately 82.5% (see Appendix # 2 for the transcript of the fifth SL session). It is noteworthy that session five required participatory design whilst the former required critique. The transcripts record a minority of students (5-6) speaking during the SL sessions. In each recorded session, according to the transcripts, one or two students dominated the student talk.

Additional student and coaches-generated written communication can be found in the group chat logs for the three recorded SL sessions. However, group chat interactions are quite limited in the number of words used in comparison to the number used in the transcripts (one-to-one chat logs were not available). The amount of student and coaches text in the group chat logs would not have a significant impact on the balance between student versus coaches talk.

The language coach reported the limitations of machinima (in-world video recordings) without additional hardware and operations in the data collection design. There is inherent data loss in machinima due to the constant need for the machinimagrapher to be in close proximity to the group of avatars in order to capture voice, movement and gestures. Private messaging, private voice chats and multitasking (e.g. using other online resources such as dictionaries, translation tools, search engines) are not captured. Furthermore, the visual and paralinguistic cues, peer-to-peer, language coach-to-peer and peer-tolanguage coach talk in situ in the blended setting of the language laboratory was not recorded. A lot of potential data was therefore lost as machinima captured partial data of the events.

When students completed the Open Design Studio assignments on time, they received feedback from the architect and the language coach (see Tables 2 and 5). This direct but asynchronous one-on-one communication which took place outside of the synchronous SL sessions increased the overall communication occurring between the coaches and the students. It also fostered student-to-student dialogue. Open Design Studio held the potential of fostering greater meaningful dialogue between the students and the architect, and among the students. The unanswered challenge is how to further incentivise or structure the course so as to encourage a greater realisation of the potential inherent in the effective use of Open Design Studio.

27

Table 5: One sample of student work from the Open Design Studio which was posted in time to receive feedback from the architect.

Student English language skills appeared to be strong enough to allow for active participation (see Appendix 3 for a sample of written texts from the first part of the course). Moreover, the language coach reported that the students participated actively in discussions in the first part of the course. During the recorded SL sessions in the second part of the course, much of the student talk was prompted by the language coach. However, little dialogic discourse developed with the students. The primary goal was to have students critique what they see and experience. More could possibly have been done to scaffold dialogue and critical thinking. For example, although mention is made in SL session five of an iconic building the nature of what constitutes iconic buildings is not discussed in depth. Perhaps more significantly as this ties to the main course objective the potential of the ‘hybrid approach’ is not explored. Students are not fully supported in teasing out their thinking. It is the architect who discusses the hybrid approach and who sums up the primary characteristic of the iconic building despite the fact that the students had 28

already identified but not fully articulated this characteristic. However, the observation here may be that of a phenomenon of shared values between the members of the synchronous action being the architect, the students and the in-house language teacher: both 'iconic building' and 'hybrid approach' are familiar notions for them, not needing in situ definitions (see section above Architectural Culture and Ethnomethodological Analysis).

Architect: So, take a look at the physical building. This is the student center of the Kelley School of Business and it’s a very iconic building on their campus. This is the building when this client originally commissioned the project, they wanted a replica of this building and as we talked about the design idea and what their goals were for it, we’d decided to do a different approach to replicating. Instead of just building it exactly as it is in the real world, we did a hybrid approach. We actually designed a building that was partially virtual and partially real. And so you’ll see that when we visit. Does anyone have any questions about this building before we head over? What do you think about the design so far based on this image here?

S1: I agree it’s really iconic, uhm.

Language coach (LC): For those who were at the Rutger School of Business, eh what could you actually say about the differences already?

S2: Well, the tower makes me (overlap with S1 unaudible) Go on.

S1: I didn’t get the question S2: Em it was ‘what’s the difference between the other the other building from the other school and and this one from the Rutger the Rutgers School of Business and the difference with this one. Eh I was thinking maybe the tower makes you think it’s more eh of a like a neo-classical building (he mutters and chuckles) (overlap with S1) S1: It makes me think of a moskay, you know what I mean?

LC: A mosque?

S1: A mosque!

S2: mosque S1 : yeah, I knew yeah LC: What do you think [architect]?

S2: not near a mosque though but the tower is a symbol, more symbolic than the other school Architect: Well it’s true that you see that the tower is taller than the rest of the urban fabric, right? The building is beyond it. Nothing is this tall.

Nothing has anything quite as tall or as iconic so that is definitely it’s giving the building at least a tower hierarchy, right? Over the rest of the urban building. It has hierarchy.

The architect remains the greatest locus of expertise whereas more could possibly have been done to tease out the students’ tacit knowledge, and foster shared cognition. For example by encouraging the students step-bystep to expand their thinking and increase their precision in expressing their thoughts, by fostering greater critical thinking and dialogue through questions such as the following could have potentially led to greater student participation.

What aspects of this hybrid approach might you use in your design work and why?

More structured questions of this nature would ideally have generated further questions and prompts that could have built up a student-dominated narrative on the benefits and challenges of a hybrid approach.

29

Finally, assessment appears to have been underused as a resource for supporting learning and shaping course development in the transcripts of the three synchronous SL recordings. The limited number of hours available, and the fact that much time during SL sessions was lost for technical reasons and because students were late are possibly contributing factors to why more time was not taken for assessment. The Open Design Studio space did create opportunities primarily for the assessment of architectural content. Students who completed these assignments on time did get feedback from the coaches and other students, and as such this space had the potential of increasing feedback between the architect and students. The assessment criteria described in the background section could benefit from being further fleshed out and perhaps retargeted to support students in better assessing their progress in meeting course outcomes.

Use of Information Technology Central to building both the virtual and non-virtual quality learning environments was the use of 3D immersive virtual environments, social networking and Web 2.0 technologies. Of the 14 students responding to the final course evaluation questionnaire 71.4% stated that they would not consider using SL in their own university design studio projects. This does not mean that students did not consider it a valuable experience. As previously discussed students appreciated the SL sessions. Their analysis of the benefits, weaknesses and potential of using SL in their architectural work demonstrated that they had engaged with the tool. Students made the following positive comments about working in SL: ... building a project, sharing ideas, giving conferences or just work on school assignments in group becomes easy and enriching. I see possibilities for students like us to work on projects or national propositions of examination for instance.

But more than for the architectural part, it’s the sociological aspect of the phenomenon that interests me.

It was a great chance to meet [the architect] and to be able to talk to him directly, to critic and learn.

Numerous other student comments, including those discussed in the previous section, demonstrate that the students found the use of SL to be a valuable learning experience. However, they also pointed to a need to use the tool in a manner that more actively engaged students in discussion and in creating some architectural content of their own. This implies the implementation of a longer course, integrating advanced building skill learning for students and as indicated by the language coach, a full integration into the design studio programme.

Although most students found working in SL interesting, they also faced numerous challenges. Several headsets did not work properly and had to be replaced over the course. Four students indicated that they found working in SL difficult. However, these reported difficulties may be due to the irregular attendance of some students that meant that they did not know 30

1. how to use the SL screen interface to activate speech (pressing, releasing the speech button); 2. how to mute/unmute sound on the headset itself; 3. how to access the SL programme settings in order to confirm the recognition and usage of the headset type being used;

As reported above students who were not in the course also entered the computer lab drawing students’ attention from the virtual sessions. This coupled with the fact that the students were in two computer labs on two different floors for each of the SL sessions compacted the challenges faced by the language coach.

The technology including the applications and tools were challenging on several levels. Not only did it take time to get the technology to work, it took time for students to learn how to use the applications and tools. As such, above all the second part of the CritIMPACT course can be seen as a type of teething stage that needs to be gone through as all involved become familiar with how to operate in this environment and with these applications and tools.

Students were generally speaking positive in their feedback about Open Design Studio. Students reported in the final course evaluation that they appreciated both the opportunity to comment on buildings and to get feedback from peers and from an architect.

I enjoyed above all simply sharing ideas and different perceptions from my friend and what they actually thought about the experience.

It is easy to see and comment on drafts of other students [...] also put audio commentary [...] it’s great. [...] very easy to communicate and to give an opinion was very useful to see the work of other [...] and comment.

It’s also a good space to debrief after a session.

I liked to see all my classmates works and comment and perceptions over the assignments.

One of the benefits of using Open Design Studio is that other people can comment on our work. I was thrilled when I read a comment XX [by the architect] on my work.

The number of positive comments regarding Open Design Studio, and the manner in which it helped to foster critical thinking and dialogue (see Tables 2 and 5) imply that in the future this tool, or another similar asynchronous tool, could be used again so as to increase student talk, to exchange feedback, and to debrief the learning process. The comments also reveal an understanding that it is person-to-person communication that is the most engaging factor in the learning process, not the given technology per se.

Considering the fact that the coaches were running the course for the first time, that they were using the SL environment which was new to the students, and that the coaches had invested a large number of hours into course preparation and delivery, it is logical to assume that it is difficult to think 31

through all the challenges of working in this environment from the outset.

Additional opportunities to teach the course would be called for. This would allow the coaches to hone the course design, and to better support students in using the tools and applications. Finally, it would give the coaches additional time and opportunities to test their ideas about how to better foster student learning. The coaches may have benefited from having additional time allotted to capture and manage the knowledge arising from the teaching of the course, and to discuss that with colleagues.

Leadership and management The École nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais is seeking to glean and manage knowledge from the ARCHI21 project about how to develop and teach CLIL courses. This is seen by the university as central to the process of moving forward with CLIL. This case study is therefore part of a larger effort to manage knowledge from the CritIMPACT course which has involved recordings of SL sessions, transcripts, the archiving of students’ written work, student course evaluations, a written report by the language coach, a conference presentation about the course and a published article.

These initiatives all appear to have been primarily led by the language coach.

This section will discuss the management of the course and explore the university’s future intentions with CLIL. The 2010 application made by the various ARCHI21 partners to the European Commission’s Life Long Learning Programme to finance this project implies that the institutional partners are preparing the way for the possible implementation of CLIL programming in their institutions. Furthermore, the application to the Lifelong Learning Programme contains a substantial section entitled ‘Impact and Sustainability’ and includes a statement regarding the final report which is to contain ‘CLIL guidelines for higher education’. Both of these elements from the application imply that ARCHI21 is not simply seeking to run isolated projects, but that it is expected to have a long-term impact on practices at the tertiary level.

As stated in the Introduction section, ARCHI21 investigates architectural education, content integrated language learning and the potential for 3D immersive virtual environments, social networking and Web 2.0 technologies to support and enhance trans-disciplinary learning in tertiary-level architectural education. Project partners are expected to undertake various exploratory and experimental studies to gauge the applicability and ultimate effectiveness of implementing CLIL at the tertiary level using these digital environments.

The ARCHI21 2011 Report: Action 2 - WP4 ENSAPM Local Actions states that the École nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais’s objectives and aims for the CritIMPACT course were as follows:

32

The objective was to raise student awareness to the affordances of a 3D immersive environment such as SL as both an experimental and real world design space, using English as the working language.

The overall aims were: To collaboratively co-design a trans-disciplinary course adopting a CLIL approach between the Language Coach and the Content Coach.

To raise awareness to professional practice using virtual worlds as working tools and creative design spaces.

To develop language of, in and through virtual architectural design.

The CritIMPACT course, a very complex course still conceptually speaking in the initial stages of development, is part of a larger strategy serving a higher set of ARCHI21 project objectives and aims that are seeking to support the development and integration of CLIL courses into the curriculum. The overall aims of the CritIMPACT course could benefit from further precision. A clearer outcome statement describing what a student can do at the end of the course could have been beneficial in planning the course, in assessing student progress and course development in general. Clearer aims or the use of outcomes statements may have allowed for more systematic and targeted CLIL course development.

Furthermore, it appears that the École nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais needs to set itself clearer and more nuanced outcomes related to the development of CLIL courses. The project partners’ application to the European Commission implies higher-level goals than the ones quoted for the CritIMPACT course being investigated in this case study. This would imply the need to develop objectives such as:   

to determine the management and pedagogical implications of offering CLIL courses; to determine investments in time, into software, hardware, personnel, professional development, and learning materials and environments required for CLIL course development; to develop a plan for integrating CLIL courses into the curriculum.

It would likely also have been helpful if measurable success indicators had been articulated for each objective in the CritIMPACT course. These could potentially have supported the measurement of progress and helped to foster reflection about both management and pedagogical issues pertaining to the development of a CLIL model for tertiary education. These outcomes and the indicators would potentially also have allowed for those running the course, and the university administration to more systematically learn about and improve their delivery and management of CLIL courses. It is, however, noteworthy that the above suggestions pertaining to objectives/outcomes and indicators constitute a very high expectation for a very complex course (CritIMPACT) that was still conceptually speaking in the initial stages of development.

33

Greater involvement of the university teachers of architecture and management team could help to integrate learning from the CritIMPACT course into future actions. If CLIL is to be integrated into the curriculum of the university, it will be helpful if several other members of staff would be involved in taking learning from this course forward. For busy members of university staff to integrate planning for CLIL, and in particular for CLIL in 3-D immersive environments, into their professional lives, they need time and involvement to understand the value, and the pedagogical and management implications of offering such CLIL courses.

A systematic process of identification of stakeholders is necessary. A stakeholder can be considered any of those people, groups or organisations that could affect the development of a CLIL programme or be affected by it.

This would include teachers of architecture, teachers of language, university administration, IT specialists, students and international partners. It is the greater involvement of stakeholders into the process of capturing and managing knowledge from courses such as CritIMPACT and the ARCHI21 project that is needed to tie present and future actions into a narrative about building sustainable programming.

The complexities of the ARCHI21 project imply that it would require several years ‘to gauge the applicability and ultimate effectiveness of implementing CLIL in tertiary architectural education’. If iterative cycles were built in that would allow for courses such as CritIMPACT to be honed as they were being delivered or if delivery was repeated, course delivery and management could be honed and then be integrated into the university’s curriculum and its management practices.

The choice of whether a course is designated in a university institution’s programme as a language course or as a content course is also likely to have an impact on how students perceive the course and how they prioritise it in relation to their overall learning goals. Some students reported that the need to complete their key architectural design studio project for the semester took precedence over other content courses and language learning courses.

Feeling under pressure to complete work for design studio projects detracted from the time some students felt they could devote to the CritIMPACT course.

This likely had a negative impact on the completion of CritIMPACT course assignments, punctuality and attendance. One student stated: About my lateness on doing assignments, I think it will be the same for all the group, to be frank, English is not the first priority and as we all have lot of work so we always do it at the last minute. It's not at all because we are not interested in it. Anyway, I feel like in this branch working in the last minute is a habit which wont change so far. We subscribed to the “CHARRETTES” [an intense period of design activity here referring specifically to the student’s major architectural assignment of the semester known as design studio].

Finally, according more attention to professional development in the areas of leadership in and management of CLIL may have helped the university administration to better see the work involved with developing the CritIMPACT course as part of a broader strategy to develop and integrate CLIL into the curriculum. It may have helped the university administration to establish more 34

precise objectives/intended outcomes in particular in reference to capturing and managing their own learning, to scope out the needed investment in human and other resources and which knowledge needed to be captured, how that could be done, and how the captured knowledge could be used.

Conclusions The success of the CritIMPACT course was largely due to the work of the inhouse language teacher and content teacher (architect), and the participation of students. The integration of architectural content into both parts of the twopart CritIMPACT course created a meaningful and appreciated learning experience for the students.

The first part of the course helped students to learn the language needed in the second half of the course which was conducted primarily in Second Life (SL). The language needed for the second half of the course was not taught so much as it was pre-used in the first half of the course to discuss the concepts of virtuality and virtual design. This integration of architecture-related content into the first part of the course helped to enhance the meaningful nature of the learning experience.

During the second part of the course, students in particular appreciated opportunities to communicate with professionals in the field, to get feedback from professionals, to discuss architectural projects from the world of work, to engage actively, and to communicate with one another. The use of Wiggio, Second Life and Open Design Studio were all tools that together contributed to creating a rich learning environment.

Using English as a medium of instruction proved viable. During the synchronous SL sessions students self-scaffolded language learning by using electronic dictionaries and translation tools and/or they were supported by the in-house language teacher who provided explanations, prompts, recasts and written examples of text.

The in-house language teacher and the architect (content teacher) helped to created an authentic learning environment that was meaningful for the students. It was a complex learning environment. Those teaching in such an environment likely need several opportunities to do so, in order to allow them to learn to use the environment in an optimal manner for CLIL. In addition, there is usually a divide between planning and execution of plans and between how one believes one is teaching and how others perceive that teaching. In the case of the CritIMPACT course, based on the transcripts of three SL sessions and written feedback on student work in the Open Design Studio environment, it is likely that the coaches could benefit from taking time to discuss the following points before reiterating the course and to participate in professional development in these areas:

35

    

planning for CLIL; establishing and using intended learner outcomes for language and content learning; developing strategies for fostering communication awareness and dialogic teaching that builds sustained narratives and fosters the collective construction of knowledge; establishing scaffolds for fostering critical thinking and discussion about subject content; using assessment to support the learning process.

In addition, the use of the asynchronous Open Design Studio appears to have the potential to increase student-educator-student dialogue. This experience also further underlines the importance that many researchers place on the role of multi-directional feedback in contributing to increased student learning.

There is a need to take the learning from the CritIMPACT course forward to future project actions and plans and to increase alignment among ARCHI21 project objectives and aims. This indicates that the ARCHI21 project may require some further conceptual work to build in elements that the project partners could use in a more nuanced and systematic manner to capture and manage knowledge arising from the delivery of the CritIMPACT course, and to build sustainable CLIL programming. Concomitantly, it is noteworthy that the substantial amounts of data captured from the CritIMPACT course can be used to further analyse CLIL programme development.

If CLIL courses are to be sustainable, learning from each stage of the project needs to be captured in writing so it can be taken forward to the university’s management team, and choices made about how to plan for CLIL. University and ARCHI21 project managers may benefit from further reflection and discussion of the following points:      



including professional development in the leadership and management of CLIL for university managers involved in or potentially affected by ARCHI21; having managers revisit the purpose of a pilot or model; establishing clearer and more detailed objectives or intended outcomes for the pilot and actions such as the CritIMPACT course, and deciding how their attainment would be measured; ensuring that these objectives pertain to both the management and teaching of the course, as well as to the management of knowledge garnered through the pilot; identifying which knowledge needs to be captured; identifying and engaging to a greater extent stakeholders (e.g. university managers, those working in IT, those currently teaching architecture courses through French but willing to consider teaching through English, students) in the planning and implementation of the pilot and its initiatives such as the CritIMPACT course; involving to a greater extent the university’s management team; 36

 

allowing for a iterative cycle of CLIL course development where learning from a first stage could be applied when a course is retaught; developing a plan for the integration of CLIL courses into the university’s curriculum.

It is noteworthy that the above suggestions constitute a set of high expectations regarding a complex CritIMPACT course that was in its initial phase of development. These suggestions are presented as ideas, not criticism, for consideration in further course and project development.

Finally, the CritIMPACT course can be considered a success. Students did enjoy the course and valued the opportunity to work directly with an architect.

There is a substantial evidence-base demonstrating that a rich learning environment was created that could be fine-tuned in the future to further enhance student learning. Much thought and hard work has been put into the CritIMPACT course. It would be well worth taking the learning from the implementation of this course forward as the École nationale supérieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais considers whether and how to establish CLIL programming.

Appendix one Final course evaluation8 Name: Avatar Name: This evaluation is in three parts: 1. Participation 2. Learning Experience 3.

Reflection.

Please complete ALL parts thoroughly, writing comprehensive feedback where required. You can complete this Word document online or paper-based.

1. Participation a. Which site visits did you attend in Second Life on the following dates with the language coach and the lead architect? Type YES or NO next to each date.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Introductory Session 7 April Palomar Hospital 28 April Rutgers School of Business 5 May Lotus XX 12 May Kelley School of Business 19 May

b. Did you use the resources (teleport, text, images, building sandbox) on the CritIMPACT parcel in Second Life BETWEEN lessons? Type YES or NO.  If you answered YES, type your reasons here: 8

The names of the In-house language teacher and architect (content teacher) have been replaced with the terms language coach and lead architect. Other names have been replaced with XX.

37

 If you answered NO, type your reasons here: c. Did you consult/use the resources on the CritIMPACT parcel in Second Life AFTER the 19 May to complete the assignments? Type YES or NO.  If you typed YES, give reasons why this was necessary. Type here: d. Which assignments did you complete? Type YES or NO next to each assignment.

1. Assignment 1 Palomar Hospital 2. Assignment 2 Rutgers School of Business 3. Assignment 3 Lotus – XX 4. Assignment 4 Kelley School of Business  If you did not complete all four assignments, give your reasons in detail. Type here: e. Did you consult the Wiggio posts and emails sent to you? Type YES or NO.  If you typed YES, give your reasons here:  If you typed NO, give your reasons here: 2. Learning Experience There are no right or wrong answers to the following questions. However, your feedback will help us, so please give honest and full answers.

Rationale behind CritIMPACT The purpose of these site visits was to raise your awareness to the potential of using a 3D immersive space like Second Life in design and architecture. To do this, English was used as the medium of communication with an experienced architect in America.

Invited guests were the client of Rutgers School and the architect, XX (former Managing Partner of XX Associates in XX).

Second Life for virtual space design: a. Did you find navigating in Second Life easy? Type Yes or No.  If you answered YES, explain in detail. Type here:  If you answered NO, explain in detail. Type here: b. Did you find communicating in Second Life easy? Type Yes or No.  If you answered YES, explain in detail. Type here:  If you answered NO, explain in detail. Type here: c.

In your opinion, how has your original perception of an environment like Second Life changed? Type here:

d. Would you consider using Second Life in your own projects? Type YES or NO.  If you answered YES, explain in detail here:  If you answered NO, explain in detail here: e.

Would you like to have your own space in Second Life to experiment for a period over the summer break? Type YES or NO.

38

 If you answered YES, please state what your intensions may be and this will be arranged. Type here:  If you typed NO, give your reasons. Type here: Open Design Studio a. Did you find using the Open Design Studio easy? Type YES or NO.  If you typed YES, explain in detail. Type here:  If you typed NO, explain in detail. Type here: b. What are the perceived benefits of using Open Design Studio? Type here: Language Learning: a. How, if at all, did these Second Life site visits improve your language skills?

Explain here: b. How did the assignments in Open Design Studio help to focus your thoughts in written English? Explain here: c. What other language learning support did you use during the Second Life sessions (i.e. online dictionaries, peer help, language tutor help, etc., etc.). Type here: d. What other language support would you have preferred to have during the Second Life sessions? Explain here: e. What other language support would you have preferred to have between the Second Life sessions? Explain here: Overall Experience : a. Did you enjoy CritIMPACT? Type YES or NO. b. What aspect did you like the most? Explain in detail here: c. What aspect did you dislike the most? Explain in detail here: d. What are YOUR suggestions to improve CritIMPACT? Please explain here: 3. Reflection Essay – Reflections on 3D Immersive Virtual Design: Write a minimum 500 words.

As students, you are normally expected to expose yourself to tutors’ critique and learn how to find creative solutions. In CritIMPACT, your role was inversed and you were critiquing four sites.

Your essay is a reflection on site visit concepts and your own experiential learning.

This reflective essay should synthesize and analyze your learning experience and demonstrate genuine personal reflection and insight.

You should reflect on what you have learnt about design and the design process in a 3D immersive environment like Second Life based on the four different site visits and their different content and objectives.

1. Use your learning experiences in the CritIMPACT sessions to make meaningful statements about insights you have gained regarding physical, virtual and hybrid projects.

2. Use your learning experiences to elaborate on experiencing a design concept, the development process, participatory design, community 39

3.

4.

5.

6.

participation, 3D immersive visualization, the utility of 3D immersive models, multi-user models.

Use your learning experiences as evidence to elaborate further, integrating and using ideas from at least 1 site visit.

Provide further critique and ideas for the Kelley School of Business Food Court.

Use your learning experience to elaborate on the fragility of this environment with reference to projects visited and, for example, grievers.

Provide explanations and commentary in your own words.

Appendix two Transcript of fifth SL session Architect : It is pretty loud LC: Someone has switched their mic off L: Yeah, I think it’s me now LC: Yes I think it is. Ok well let’s just go over to where we were going to go. Uh, I don’t know whether you’ve been there, Oh I am taking a long Architect: Follow me Architect: Turn your mic off Architect: We need to review just briefly your camera controls to be able to look at this floor plan. What we’re going to do is look at the plan and try to find names of rooms. And in order to see the names it’s a little tricky you might have to uh use your camera controls so again if you hold down Control and Alt and then click somewhere and move your mouse around you’ll see that that your mouse is able to orbit around that spot so again hold down Control and Alt and point it some place in the plan and you can get a closer look. Then you can zoom in and out with your scroll with your scroll by looking in and out. So we’re going to find different room names. So for example, can anyone and then when you do find it, walk your avatar to that room. So can everyone find BREAKOUT ROOM. LC: Breakout room as fast as possible. Move your avatar to breakout rooms. PAUSE S3 won I think? Followed closely by S4 who’s now moving away (she laughs plus [architect] ).

S4 I’m looking for another one. How many are there?

LC: Aah? Architect: You can ..

LC: Switch your mic off afterwards Architect: S10, can you find one? Find a breakout room? Mary? All right. We’re close enough. We’ve got breakout rooms. So does anybody know what a breakout room is?

S1: No, I don’t know (voices in background) I don’t know what’s a breakout room.

Architect: Anyone? (overlaps with S1) S1: No I don’t know. (Lots of voices in background) I have no clue.

LC: Anybody know what a breakout room is? Let’s Break out. When you break out from something (voices in background) DSK would like to break out from somewhere right now.

S1: some kind of separation (in parallel J: so a breakout) LC: can you repeat (overlap: J: so a breakout room is) LC: Go ahead LiebeKobe a breakout room is some kind of ?

S1: some kind of circulation something to eh to to yeah to distribute the circulation I guess Architect: Good guess.

LC: Go ahead [architect] Architect: A breakout room is if you were gathered in a classroom and everybody is all together and you wanted to divide up into smaller groups and then each of the smaller groups goes into their own room. That would be called a breakout room. So that’s what’s happening here is there’s a larger classroom across the hallway across the corridor and so

40

the classes might break up into smaller groups and then each of them would be assigned to a breakout room uh in the larger hallways. So they’re just basically smaller smaller meeting rooms for smaller groups of individuals.

LC: OK, so the next word please. Move your avatar (voice from S2) once you’ve found it is LOCKERS. Who found it first [architect] ?

Architect: Ha ha, it’s a tie. Anyone know what lockers is? (Overlap with LC: Do you know) Yeah, what is a locker?

LC: We’ve got both voices today S1: A locker is where you put your things and lock them?

LC: True! Do you have any in school?

S1: No, not at all. There not enough we don’t have enough lockers.

LC:[architect] ?

Architect: Good! That’s good. Uhm go to a tiered one hundred person lecture hall. Can everybody find the tiered one hundred person lecture hall.

LC: So the race is on.(Pause and voice in background) Architect: Very good LC: S4 came first I think followed closely by LiebeKobe? Followed by S12 AND anyone else? How many are there? Next question. OK, so who won at the end [architect] ?

Architect: Oh, I couldn’t call it. I don’t know cos everybody is kind of going at the same time.

LC: I have a question before we move on. What’s the difference please between a lecture hall and an auditorium? A lecture hall and an auditorium.

S1: I guess a lecture hall is where you follow your classes and auditorium is more about eh you can see a movie or you have a presentation . It’s bigger?

LC: Certainly bigger if we look here for the capacity of the rooms. What’s the capacity of the auditorium here?

S1: Eh five hundred?

LC: Right, what’s the capacity of the lecture halls?

S1: One hundred LC: Right, there’s one hundred and?

S1: forty five and sixty I think.

LC: Are they classrooms though or lecture halls?

S1: Uhm I think there’s one lecture hall and oh then the forty five is a classroom so my mistake LC: So there’s a distinction between those isn’t there? Not only capacity so uhm perhaps [architect] would like to tell us what this school has in the lecture hall, auditorium and classroom.

Architect: Honestly, I eh I uhm I don’t know what the difference would be in how they actually use the spaces. Again I think you’ve covered that pretty well. The classroom I think is more individual desks that can be rearranged and the lecture hall is assigned seating or not assigned seating but it’s rigid seating that can’t be changed. And ah the tiered, does anybody know what the word tiered means?

S1: No, I don’t S2: No Architect: S12? (snapshots being taken) S4? S4 do you know what tiered means or could hazard at a guess?

S4 Sorry, are you saying tiered like (she spells) TEARED? I don’t ..

Architect: No, TIERED (spells) S4 TIER (she spells) you mean it’s divided ? Where? I I don’t know, sorry.

LC: Look in the text. Tiered. Yeah, tiered S1: Is it like divided in three pieces? Or something like that? (voices in background) Architect: Sort of. Anybody else?

S2: Uhm which text are we meant to look?

Architect: In chat there that’s tiered TIERED (he spells) S2: Oh yeah than ..k Architect: So tiered is if it’s if there are steps basically Each one of the you know in a in an auditorium when everyone wants to see the front, it’ll often stagger the the seating? So the the seat the next row of seats is a little bit higher than the first row and so on all the way back.

Uh, in that way everybody can see the front so there’s different steps. And so basically, each step is a tier. So that’s what tiered seating means. I don’t know if that’s clear or there’s

41

another way to describe that. Oh yeah, this is great! Look at the sec the cross section shows tiered very well. That’s tiered seating.

LC: So my last question here would be to everybody, now that we’re looking at this cross section, what is the overlook? Nobody has an answer?

S2: (overlap) I don’t really Unkown avatar: I don’t, I don’t (overlap too) LC: Overlook? If you look at the cross section S2: (overlaps) The overlook of LC: you have the overlook Architect: I think SniPal (S2) had had an answer. Go ahead SniPAL S2: No No I was asking what what was meant by the question. The overlook of the whole building?

Architect: In one spot on the cross section there’s an area that’s marked overlook? Uroop About by my feet (he moves his avatar to position) just my left right there labeled an overlook in the section. What do you think that means? What would that be like in the building (S2 OK)what would an overlook be?

S2: It means that everyone can see since it’s leveled eh think (J; yeah) or is it eh S1: It’s got huge eyes of the auditorium and the covered plaza I think Architect: So the overlook in this case uhm would be an area and it’s more clear in the actual 3D model of the building but there’s a space with a hand rail or a guard rail? And you can look down over the space below it. So in this case there’s an open lounge area that’s below the overlook and there’s a hand rail or a guard rail that you can stand on that second floor and look down over the so it’s kind of like a balcony.

S2: OK, I get it LC: OK, Everybody clear on that one before we move on? Jump up in the air if you are!

Yahoo, I can see some people jumping. Good. OK. So we’re going to now walk back to where we first met. Just follow [architect] . Walk back to where we first met.

Architect: Follow me.

S2: Michel Base has a a mic problem (he chuckles) LC: OK, I’m just going to sort out a student. Two seconds please. Carry on and I’m going up to the platform already then.

Architect: OK, I’ll get started getting everyone up there Architect: So this session today is going to be called Kelley School of Business. So it’s another school of business and we’re about to visit that and you’ll see some differences between what we’ve done for Kelley School of Business versus Rutger but what I wanted to point out here is that uhm in case you missed previous sessions, each one of the sessions that we’ve gone to has its own skybox and each of the skyboxes is indicated on the ground floor by an arrow. And you see that there is an arrow right here? And that will take you to the sky box for this particular session that we’re about to do today. So, I just want everyone to visit the skybox so you see how that works. And if you missed a previous session uhm you can go to the other skyboxes and you’ll be able to get a landmark to visit those locations so that you’ll be able to do the assignments for each week. And again, all we need you to do for each week is to take a snapshot and write a description of a critique of each space that you visited and your favourite snapshot from each week. Uhm so if you missed one, be sure to go back and do that. We’re enjoying reading your comments and critique on the website so please keep those coming. Those are great. So all you do is right click this white triangle and click teleport and we’ll meet everybody up there. It’ll be a little tricky cos it’s kind of a small space but we’ll see what we can do.

Architect: S5, you see what I mean this triangle?

LC: OK, we’re getting here slowly and one of the students we hope is going to sort out his So if you just move away when you arrive. That’s it so that we don’t squash each other and uhm if not I’ve got another one up here. OK! Architect: All right! Everyone made it I think. So here we have some screenshots and images from Kelley School of Business which we are about to visit which give you a kind of preview of what we’re about to see and what I want you to look at here is the fact that there are pictures of the physical building. Go ahead Moira LC: Yeah and before we start can I just remind you all that one of the parts of the assignment is to take your snapshots as we go along now. We’re actually into the visit and decide which one is the one that most appeals to you for the assignment that you have for this eh week. OK? Thanks.

42

Architect: So, take a look at the physical building. This is the student center of the Kelley School of Business and it’s a very iconic building on their campus. This is the building when this client originally commissioned the project, they wanted a replica of this building and as we talked about the design idea and what their goals were for it, we’d decided to do a different approach to replicating. Instead of just building it exactly as it is in the real world, we did a hybrid approach. We actually designed a building that was partially virtual and partially real. And so you’ll see that when we visit. Does anyone have any questions about this building before we head over? What do you think about the design so far based on this image here?

S1: I agree it’s really iconic, uhm.

LC: For those who were at the Rutger School of Business, eh what could you actually say about the differences already?

S2: Well, the tower makes me (overlap with S1 unaudible) Go on.

S1: I didn’t get the question S2: Em it was ‘what’s the difference between the other the other building from the other school and and this one from the Rutger the Rutgers School of Business and the difference with this one. Eh I was thinking maybe the tower makes you think it’s more eh of a like a neo classical building (he mutters and chuckles) (overlap with S1) S1: It makes me think of a mosque, you know what I mean?

LC: A mosque?

S1: A mosque!

S2: mosque S1 : yeah, I knew yeah M : What do you think [architect] ?

S2: not near a mosque though but the tower is a symbol, more symbolic than the other school Architect: Well it’s true that you see that the tower is taller than the rest of the urban fabric, right? The building is beyond it. Nothing is this tall. Nothing has anything quite as tall or as iconic so that is definitely it’s giving the building at least a tower hierarchy, right? Over the rest of the urban building. It has hierarchy. Well let’s visit. Let’s go to the building. Uhm, I’ll type, do we have any other questions while we’re here? Take a look at these other screen these other images before we go. Unfortunately, I don’t have pictures of the real world building in the virtual campus so this will be our last chance to see what the building looks like in the real world. What kind of a structural system do you see here compared to Rutgers?

Someone commented in their assignment screenshot that Rutgers is a very large uhm curtain wall which I thought was a very very good observation. The whole building was one big curtain wall but what about this one? S12? Babyface? What kind of a what kind of a structural system do you see here? Or at least, in part.

LC: Come close to [architect] S1: Iron … iron?

Avataar: Iron and glass Architect: Steel, I think it would be steel. I think there is a lot of uhm or at least aluminum clad steel, I would guess. Usually the steel will have a a cladding around it. I think the detail here is that there is a cladding which would mean that there is probably a structural steel frame and the glass is suspended from that and the structural steel is clad in something like an aluminum or metal sheathing. And there’s also a load bearing wall here right? Some of the, far left. At least visually it’s indicating that it’s a load bearing wall. And even though it’s masonry and it’s very solid and it looks like a load bearing wall, I would suspect that there is a steel frame behind that also. Uhm, we don’t build very many true load bearing walls any more for obvious reasons, it’s expensive and unnecessary not for every project but it’s a very sold masonry in its clad and probably what is a marble or concrete paneling system that’s suspended from the steel frame. OK. So let’s go and visit the site.

There are a couple of ways we can go. I want you to know how to use the landmark giver for other sessions. If you missed other sessions this is really important. You can go to the other platforms for those sessions, find one of these right by where I’m standing. Click here for a landmark. If you click that you’ll get a landmark to that building. And so the same is true for Rutgers and for the other spaces we visited. If you click that you’ll get a landmark and you can visit it and again, take a snapshot while you’re there and post your snapshot to the website and write a review or a critique or a commentary of that building. It doesn’t have to

43

be a lot just anything that occurs to you. Any observation that you come up with so we can comment on that and see what you(overlap M) and taking snapshots LC: And I can add [architect] as you know the ones, the few students who have been doing this, it’s really interesting to read and to comment on and then to see the comments back again. So Please everybody else do this. This is part of our work here so we’re looking forward to seeing everybody’s assignments there.

Architect: I just want to clarify one more thing. When you click this and it gives you a landmark, you’ll see that you can keep the landmark in your lower right corner? The way you access that afterwards is you open your menu on the right, you might. If it’s not already open you’ll see two little arrows on the upper right uh on your right side. You can open that menu that fly-out menu and click the little brief case, there’s a little suitcase? That is your inventory.

And if you click your inventory, you’ll find a folder called landmarks? And in that landmarks folder, you’ll find any of the landmarks that you’ve ever been given throughout this project or that you’ve taken. If you took one of these landmarks, you’ll find that in your landmarks folder. So again , go back to the other platforms if you didn’t go to those sessions and take a landmark, find it in your inventory and visit that site and post a snapshot. So let’s visit this S2: Can we lower the volume? The jazz volume?

Architect: Oh, I’m sorry in the upper right corner, press the pause or stop Architect: To stop the jazz, uhm click in the upper right hand corner of your interface LC: (overlap) switch the media off Architect: Yeah, switch the media off so in the upper LC: (overlap) can I just tell everybody that if when they come here they’ve got media, so music playing, they can switch that off by looking at the top of your screen at the right and you’ll see like a speaker and you just click on it and it will stop the music. OK? OK S2: OK Architect: Did everyone make the teleport? Oh, here we go, I see people coming now.

LC: So if everybody moves away a bit from the little teleport spot and towards [architect] , that would be great!

LC: So sorry, I’m just going to tell everybody again for the music. On your screen at the top right hand corner, you’ll see the little speaker. You just click on it and it has the red sign and that will stop the music. You OK, S10? OK. (voices in background) Repeat again, OK. So, top of the screen , right hand corner, you have a speaker, just click on it. OK? Good. So just a follow on because eh to keep up with our time schedule we are asking you to just look around the exterior here like we did in a previous visit so just five minutes to just fly around, walk around, on your own, on the outside, on the exterior of the building and then to come back here.

LC: So we should see more people coming back here as they finish their five minutes fly around.

LC: OK, are we all here? Anybody missing? They haven’t got the same watches. Right so [architect] and I have one question for you right now and eh [architect] is going to ask it to you and I’m putting it in the text at the same time Architect: Yeah, how does this design compare with the Rutgers School (overlap with M) LC: Have we lost [architect]’s voice?

S2: Speak louder please [architect] LC: so how do you think this design here compares with the Rutgers School of Business virtual design?

S2: Well, you can enter the buildings and there’s something in it eh maybe I didn’t visit the other school right but I don’t think we could really get in get inside the buildings (overlaps [architect] ) Architect: That’s true the interior was bigger M tout le monde a perdu leur voix?)

S1: I think it’s ehm a smaller scale so M direct can’t hear you) You can’t hear me? (M No, Others, I can hear you) Still can’t hear me? (M no) S2: Yeah we can hear you Architect: We can hear you fine S1: OK, so I think it’s a smaller a small scale than the other one so as a student maybe it’s easier to appropriate the space (voices in the background) And also I think it’s more ehm more finished, isn’t it? Because you have a kind of places where you can go and sit and I suppose to have some classes? I guess.

44

Architect: Yeah. Yep, very good. Anyone else? I notice (several voices together) (Overlap S2: we can’t hear you [architect]) Does anyone else notice any differences or similarities with Rutgers?

S2: I didn’t really get it. Is it is it the building that’s the model that’s smaller scale or the whole school that is smaller cos I I thought the other one was much bigger actually S1: Yeah, I meant this school IS smaller than the other one. That’s what I meant. That’s why I said it was a smaller scale S2: Yeah but the building is eh the scale of the model looks bigger. I don’t know Architect: That’s very true. That’s a great observation. In fact, this building was replicated at one and a half times the real life scale of the blueprints whereas the other one was built at one to one. So one meter equals one meter at Rutgers School of Business. This one was replicated at one point five meters per one meter on the real world blueprint. And there’s a couple of reasons we did that. Ah can anyone guess what why I would build this one larger than Rutgers School of Business? PAUSE. Well, it might not be immediately apparent but the difference is that Rutgers School of Business was a study model intended to uhm help people understand a real world facility uhm that they were about to build in the real world. So they wanted to make sure that it was one to one exactly the same. Uhm with Kelley School of Business, it’s different. This building already exists in the real world. And so I mentioned earlier about hybrid architecture. That’s the approach that we did here where there’s enough of the iconic nature of the familiar of the existing building ah to make it look familiar.

And so as you fly through here, did you feel as though it had some similarities with the building that we looked at in the screenshots before we came here?

S1: Yeah, obviously Architect: Yeah so LC: (overlap) S7, what do you think? S7 what do you think? PAUSE He’s going to text. And what about you S3? You weren’t at the previous school work of Did you visit the previous school of business?

S3: No I didn’t (background LC: OK) LC: S6? PAUSE J: That’s right, remember to take your screenshots.

LC: (overlaps) She’s thinking. She’s thinking J: (overlaps) OK LC: S8?

S4 Yes, well I didn’t visit the other school honestly. I haven’t I haven’t got the ti I didn’t have the time but uhm well, I can’t answer the question if I haven’t visited the other one.

LC: OK Architect: What are some things that are missing from this building that you would have in a physical building? Did anybody notice anything that’s different about this like could you build could this be in the real world right now as it is? Is there anything missing from it?

S4 Well, there is a sea all around it so I don’t think it J: Right! That’s a good point, there’s a sea all around it and it’s not like that in the real world I guarantee that S4 Yeah LC: And S7 says in the text that all things lose some of its charisma when it’s extracted from its context.

Architect: That’s very true. That’s very true. It’s a limitation that we don’t have the context of this building as it is in the real world.

S2: And about the difference I think the structure outside is really flying pretty much around.

Or it’s not holding anything at least Architect: Yep S1: Yeah, the cantilever is eh longer (overlap S2: the stair is impossible) Architect: Well believe it or not Right the stair is impossible that’s true. The cantilever is actually exactly right compared at least to the blueprints unless they changed the blueprints uhm unless they changed the design as they were building it in the real world. Uhm they were built exactly according to the blueprints so it’s very close but the structure is very open, right? There’s no windows or doors on the lower level. So if this were in the real world uhm you know it would be like an outdoor space like a pavilion almost. You could walk right in and wind could blow in there and uh it would not be protecting you from the elements very well.

So that’s one liberty we took with the virtual building. Uh, we took out all the doors and windows on the lower level so it’s much more open. Uhm, I don’t know if you’ve experienced

45

this yet but if you go inside of a building in Second Life, your avatar feels very confining and very restrictive and so the more open a space can be in the virtual world, the more inviting and the more pleasant it is to be in And that was a goal with this project was to make the interior feel much more open and welcoming.

J: Let’s go over to the LC: [architect] , yeah [architect] , as the students quite cleverly answered our question we were going to ask in the text, let’s now go over and see what they think of what you’re doing there.

Architect: Notice that these light bollards are turning red as we go. I um. These lights if you look ahead? They’re all white except for the one we’re standing by which is red and so the they’re responsive to our presence as we approach. See it turned red. That’s a subtle design cue but it’s something that at least the building is somehow responding.

LC: Sorry what would you call a responding building?

PAUSE Architect: laughs S2: it’s a kind of S1: cafeteria S2: mall, a mall with only food and restaurants and different types of restaurants Architect: Right. Exactly. This is the food court. And in the physical building, it’s a very important part of the school. This is a place where students gather and they lounge and relax and do homework and they set up laptops and they they spend a lot of time here. And so when I created this space, my intention was to have it be very open uh as it is right now and let the students and faculty customize it for themselves but how how does this space feel to you? If you were a student and you walked in here, how does it feel? Does it feel warm and inviting or does it feel, how does it feel to you?

S2: Cold and uninviting Architect: laughs LC: laughs That was my feeling too haha Architect: (overlaps) isn’t it? Yeah S4 Apart from the pictures. No maybe the pictures Architect: (overlaps) Yeah right the pictures of the real world space make it warmer, right?

S2: Yeah but they’re dark and you can’t really see them LC: Can we look at them? Maybe you can tell us about them?

Architect: Yeah, let’s look at them S2 ( inaudible overlap – get closer) Architect: So these are pictures of the real world food court uhm and this is an interesting Go ahead Moira S1: I think it’s quite cold because it’s uhm there’s no corners where you can you know it’s like so eh big that you don’t have any corner to ehm I don’t know how you say to put yourself in the corner. Does that make sense?

Architect: (overlaps) Very good point. Yep. Very good point. I know exactly what you mean.

What else makes it cold? It’s out of scale, very good S7. Very very true. Anything else about the space that makes it feel cold? It’s like a museum hall, exactly. That’s a good point.

It does. So I just want to provide a little bit of background. This is a project that is about to be delivered to the client. I’m almost done. Uhm I haven’t finished out some of the spaces like the food court for example. Uhm but again my intention was to let the students and faculty customize it and make it their own. But as you all observed and I completely agree and certainly the client agrees that this is a very cold and uninviting space. And o I wondered if you could help? I heard some suggestions already. And actually help to give some ideas and what I’ll do is to create those ideas as we’re in discussion here and I will propose those ideas to the client and see if the client likes the ideas you come up with and if they do, we’ll include it in the final design. So what, someone said you can’t go in the corner and kind of meet and I think that’s a great idea. There should be corners. There should be little comfy places that you can go and relax in a corner and feel like you’re out of the main eh area. So what I’ll do, I’m going to uhm put these images off to the side a little bit for now LC: So whilst [architect] is doing that I have a question to you. What for you does participatory design mean? Participatory design where you’re actually participating in the design of something.

S2: It’s democratic

46

LC: democratic; What else? Other words that come to mind? Do you actually do it yourselves?

S4 A brainstorm?

S1: I think participatory is aimed to answer directly to the ones that need something? They are the first one concerned so they are the first one that eh that knows what they need.

LC: And S6, how is community participation different? Community participation. Or what is community participation? [architect] will be talking about this a bit more here but what is community participation? Normally, in the design , who has something to say about the design?

S2: Community is community LC: Which here means whom?

S1: Students?

S2: Us, students LC: Yes, students S2: People LC: What do you think of the idea of students designing their own spaces?

S2: It’s interesting (laughter in the background) LC: It’s interesting. Can you actually do it here, in the real world?

Architect: Are there any spaces in your school that you can customise?

S2: Yeah Architect: You can! Where?

S2: We built chairs and eh LC: Yes, just recently S2: Everywhere. On the terraces and eh in our eh common space we built chairs but it’s because we don’t have enough chairs (laughter by others) It’s not really (laughter) LC: And what about the wall? You can tell [architect] about the wall.

S1: I think I like what I like about this school is that our walls, they always end up with a sousbasement I don’t know how you say that in English. It’s like a a uhm sous basement do you know how eh (voices in background) well it’s part of the wall that goes ehm it’s forteen centimeters high from the ground to the wall and you can sit on it and you can just J: That’s great. So what else about this space? The materials are too cold? What kind of materials would feel warmer?

ENSAPM connection lost Architect: How about a red floor

Appendix three Students’ Wiggio texts S8 (Tue, February 22, 2011 02:30pm) The blog is about how pictorial images should be viewed as a space, a fragment of a whole: the 'virtual space'. It considers that technological devices such as computers and televisions create these images and that they are detached from the physical object or entity they represent.

In my opinion, this statement undermines photography or painting and other forms of art. It is choosing to look at a picture as if it had no source, no human touch behind it. The Eiffel- Tower and Van Gogh painting are represented in this blog. I believe it is absurd to look at a picture of the Eiffel tower and not think of a cultural symbol, two engineers who had a breakthrough in physics, and a part of France's heritage. Also, it is very difficult to look at the painting and not link it to the artist and the context and period it was created in.

The way I see it, computers and technologies are means of perception. They can be compared to what a printer can do with a camera and picture. It will represent something physical and tangible in another form, that we will be able to transport. In some cases, it will be a souvenir of an object that doesn't exist anymore. With the internet, pictures and images could be transferred, copied and altered. This has created an enormous database of pixels and colors. In the blog, they are viewed as a 'virtual space' and leave free interpretation. Unless the space is viewed as each person's imagination, devices and computers are mediums of representation. They may have a virtual role in conveying images of objects that are not there when they are perceived, but these objects exist: they cannot be reduced to a virtual and abstract space.

47

S9 (Wed, February 23, 2011 01:22pm) I agree with S8. To me, the author of the blog hasn't truly thought his theory through. He has simply proposed a one sided view on what is virtuality. To me there is no such thing as virtual space - at least not in the form the author suggests exists. Virtual space exists, true - but in a controlled space, contained in hard drives, servers and so on. These 'spaces' are designed and thought out. We know how much space a hard drive has - measured in mega or giga bites, even tera bites. Similarly a server has a spatial capacity. There is no such thing, yet, of an infinite space similar to the universe. The images we see on our screens are generated by our computers and projected from 'virtual spaces' that we, or someone has created. Also, as S8 said, such images cannot be detached from their original significance, references and cultural meaning. Even if a person does not recognise the particular building, picture or painting, they will still see a painting, a building or a photograph before they start thinking about pixels and virtuality and they will equally have a general idea on where these representations come from - be it a server in indonesia or a hard drive in their very own computer.

S10 (Wed, February 23, 2011 05:32pm) I just read this article, my first feedbacks are quite bad ; maybe i am having a temporary rant right now but i start to saturate with all these reflections on virtual worlds, virtual spaces, virtual pictures, kind of a bit annoyed.

It's in the mean time a bit contradictory because i am completely immersed into it and stuck to my computer almost every day.

But i'm just wondering , why are we debating about the pixels of the Van Gogh's painting from a virtual space somewhere, in a other dimension, as data on a hard drive (%u2026) while we can speak about the master piece itself. This is going too far, kind of an overdose. This guy doesn't convince me, his point is not original, not brand new at all. OK, when we look to a picture of the Eiffel tower we are not looking to the real one but to thousands of small insignificant squares, is it an astonishing phenomenon as he said ? We know that.

I would prefer to thing about the role of these different virtual spaces in our lifes, don't we give them a bit too much importance trying to give them meanings and goals? A far-reaching idea .. well i don't agree. Shouldn't it be just a tool ?

Anyway, the last part was so much relevant on my opinion ; about painters being architects on their canvas..how they create architectures in their mind through their imagination, their knowledge and pictorial memory from the real world.. If someone tells me the place of the creation, in the artist's brain is a virtual dimension.. I leave.

S12 (Wed, February 23, 2011 07:56pm) Maybe it is a thing shared by Architecture students, because I have to say I totally agree with S10, why are we always spending our time to deal with the virtual? Computers, database, google are amazing tools, it is really usefull and I think we all agree with that. But, a theory about pixels of some images?

Maybe it has to be done, and we have to be aware of it but I think it is the case, we spend hours and hours designing projects, surfing on internet, we know that is virtual. When I read this blog, I just want to answer "so what?", I do not really see the point.

I know I am not really objective about it and it is not exactly what it is said in the blog, but I am a little annoyed by all this agitation about the all virtual world so I am conscious to have a distorted judgement.

In fact, I have really appreciate the part about Architecture (as S10 again!), it is fascinating to think about it, and how an artist chooses his background and how is it participating to his paintings. Does he paint a souvenir, does he paint an archetype? Maybe a mix? Is it real or is it what he wants us to see?

And do we really see the same picture? It raises a lot of interesting questions.

S15 (Wed, February 23, 2011 09:04pm) i found the post called "a blog about architecture" really disturbing. it explains the author(s) point of vue on painting and architecture. they believe that painters are also architects because they sometimes create buildings in their paintings' background. they choose as an example a painting by Sandro Botticelli whose monumental temple-like building is a skilled combination of real buildings'parts, variations of pre-existant work and total inventions. they assume that since the painter imagines a new building who seems possible, he can be called an 'architect'. but do the painters think about how their oh-so-beautiful building can resist to the wind, it's own mass...? i don't think we can reduce the role of architects to creating beautiful images, even though it's part of

48

their job. painters and architects may share the conceptual part, but the architect works out its project until it's ready to be realised for real. the Virtual Space Theory Blog's vision of architecture and architects is a bit narrow-minded (as far as i'm concerned) and they forgot about the whole technical aspect of creating a building which is always linked to the conception.

S 6 (Wed, February 23, 2011 09:19pm) It's clear that a theory based on pixels is completely absurd and meaningless. I mean for architecture students%u2026 Perhaps for computational scientists%u2026 they find a particular interest in this quest for generation of small colored cubes producing images at all possible resolutions. Geeks will love this topic !!

Plus, I find it weird that human kind has such an interest in a theory like this especially because pixels are just small details of the virtual world. I mean, with pixels you can build whatever you want, obviously, but it's not only that%u2026 We shouldn't take on consideration the calculation based on the number of pixels that has a screen, bitmap or Jpeg images but rather to experience all kind of new experimentations in the virtual space.

S13 (Wed, February 23, 2011 10:42pm) Just as a lot of student, I disagree with the virtual theory. This subject is getting on my nerves and scaring me. I wonder where this "technologique progress" is going ? I'm kind of freaking out when I read that people think that we are looking at pixels when we see a painting / drawing / picture on the web. Even if it's right, we, most of all, see the work of a human being. It's important not to forget the social dimension of life, we are losing it because of virtual progress. Everyone withdraw into oneself nowadays because the "human" contact is supposed to be easier on virtual platform than on real. Isn't it sad ?

I'm going off the point but to be honnest, this article didn't interest me a lot, I don't see the interest actually...

S 7 (via email Thu, February 24, 2011 11:06am) I have read the text and I feel like I have just wasted some of my time.

I think it is a very good thing to question some aspects of life, perception and all but sometimes people just go too far and to me it sounds more like provocation. Why would we need "an alternative way of seeing what pictorial images are"? Who cares really. Such a theory does not help people going further in life, therefore I am a bit annoyed just like pretty much everyone in the class.

The other part about paintings and architecture is fine, but still, what kind of questions are these? "isn’t the architecture in it actually a documentation of a particular place in 19th-century Paris? " wow! really smart, yes, no, maybe, it's not really important at the end of the day.

S14 (Thu, February 24, 2011 11:25am) I cannot really find if i'm pro or against this "virtual theory". On one hand, this subjects passionates me (i'm kind of a "geek" some say) but on the other hand, the way it is shown bores me. We are not machines who only analyse a sort of "life code" and see it everywhere, transforming it into informations, eg : we don't see a code in a paint, don't transform it into pixels for our brain to see it right ! As Claire said, we see "beyond the screen". The pixels morph into the real paint, we analyse it as a paint and not as a virtual picture of this paint, even if we know this is not the real paint.

But to support the "virtual theory", I really do agree that contact is much easier on virtual platforms (such as social networks or video games) : you don't see the person you are talking too. Obviously, this can bring to misundersatndings, or worst to very easy lies. BUT this makes the contact easier, e.g. : I played video games in my youth (aka last year) and I can assure you that making real frinds in it is

49

really easy. Imagine, you play with them about 4 or 5 hours a day, and stay on platform such as Skype about the asme time. In one month of time, you have friends that you sometimes know better than some "real friends". Then you meet them IRL (stands for "In Real Life"). And even when you stop playing these games you continue to see them, they stay "real" friends.

I went totally off the subject, I'm sorry, but this article reminded me of some good times ;)

S2 (Fri, February 25, 2011 11:10am) I understand most of what this blog is about, even though it goes a long way to explain it. Its content doesn't particularly chock me, and I don't disagree with everything it states, but I feel it doesn't really involve me... One thing I really disagree about is a paragraph in the "A blog about architecture" article.

It is the "There is a whole other kind of architecture that is hardly ever discussed" part. I think the author's point of view is completely opposite to what we can observe as students in architecture. Since we are working on theoretical (or virtual) projects, we are familiar to this virtual world, and even when we study architecture that really exists, it is mostly through reading, analyzing photographs or watching movies. The thing is we "hardly ever discuss" about architecture we can really feel, see and visit.

It makes me feel the person doesn't really know about the subject, like S15 said, I don't really understand how architecture is involved in the "virtual space theory"... Is that statement about architecture an argument or a conclusion? This makes the rest of the theory superficial, since it seems to me that it is based on unclear statements.

S16 (Sat, February 26, 2011 11:04am) The thing that bothered me most about this blog was the way the author seemed to propose his "theory" as a whole new way of seeing the world, a revolutionary concept, whereas the same theory on art has already been though through by many philosophers and critics. We can read statements on and on about the reproduction of art works but the most famous book about this "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin, is never named.

I feel like the author of the blog has fallen in the very trap he warns about : we can read the content of the blog but we don't know the sources, who wrote it, whom it is addressed to etc... Just like virtual images, it is virtual information floating on the web that is hard to link with reality.

The issue of reality in the virtual space is very relevant, but the blog doesn't give clear enough answers.

Walter Benjamin's theory, built however before the web appeared, is very simple : when we stand in front of a reproduction (like the pictures of Van Gogh showed in the blog) we loose the "aura" of the work of art, its materiality, its context. When people travel great distances to see an ancient fresco in an Italian abbey for instance, the whole journey and the place itself, (with all the smells, the light, the weather etc.) are part of this experience of art, whereas a photograph of the fresco seen on the web is a completely different experience.

It gets frightening when people start to mix up reality and reproduction, loosing trace of the real. As CS8 said, it is hard to see a painting without linking it to the artist and historical context but many people aren't bothered to say "I saw the sunflowers of Van Gogh" when all they saw was a low quality reproduction, and they won't feel any need to see the true painting because they think they already saw it.

S17 (via email Mon, February 28, 2011 01:29pm) I disagree with a lot of students and specially S10 and S12.

Virtual is the new reality.

We're constantly dealing with it, not because of a few "geeks" as Eugenia says but because it is anchored in our culture and we are building societys and relationships and economys with all these tools that are no longer tools but a new mould.

I am not saying that i agree with what is said on the blog or was even interested, i am just underligning the legitimacy of such research or theory.

I know it can be difficult for our generation to be the witnesses of the changing, specially when it comes to (re)questioning what we were formated to think of as the reality ( what a strange word that ought to be relativised).

Seeing those changes occure so much faster than they used to, we can feel nostalgic, unsecured, frightened.

Of course i am not saying we should be fatalistic or accept everything that is given to us without disagreing or even rebel if something goes against values we judge fondamental.

50

As regard the blog itself i think it's a good thing that he develops a theory based on research about the so called "virtual world". But i don't fully agree with his method.

He uses archaistic ways of thinking as a referee.

It's probably also because of that that we can feel annoyed. We can feel that he's perverting what we know and may like. He should use new tools, develop new ways of thinking to approach those subjects.

51