INFORMAL URBAN PRACTICE
1. articulate your aspirations for the studio and propose a means for self-assessment
Student name: Meg McMillan What do you aspire to learn through the studio? Clearly propose the most important 6 or more aspects of learning and achievement (in few words) that you aspire to measure your work against.
What is likely to indicate different levels of your performance and achievement against each criteria? Describe in detail the indicators (evidence) of quality at the level of performance that you aspire to achieve. In less detail, describe what will indicate if you have achieved above or below your aspired level.
CRITERIA
‘SATISFACTORY’ PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Testing of one community engagement technique with little to no results
‘GOOD’ PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Testing of multiple techniques with little to no results
‘VERY GOOD’ PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Testing of multiple techniques with obvious results; documentation of engagement
Create design with little to no detail or development; no iterations
Create design with little development; full scale design only
Design with multiple iterations and documentation of process; multiple models plus full scale
Idea generation but no collaboration or no individual idea input, only commenting on others input
Works with only a select few in collaborating ideas, doesn’t collaborate with entire group
Set up a design system, no public participation
Set up a design system in a few locations, little to no participation
Individual idea generation along with collaboration/feedback from others, gives input on others ideas Multiple testings of design systems, evidence of improvement in design, medium to little participation
One attempt at spatial intervention actions, no reaction, no attempt at improvement Create design, doesn’t allow for social provocation
One attempt at spatial intervention actions, slight reaction, no improvement on ideas Design with some social provocation
1 Community engagement techniques
2 Detail design development
3 Collaborative idea generation
4
Testing design systems with public participation
5 Spatial intervention tactics
6 Design for social provocation
Few attempts at spatial intervention actions, few reaction, minimal improvement Development of design with some social provocation
‘OUTSTANDING’ PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Testing of multiple community engagement techniques with obvious results; documentation shows amount of engagement; continued improvement Design with multiple iterations, documentation of design process; multiple models; design drawings; full scale model Idea generation with entire group, brings individual ideas, listens and gives input to others idea, collaborative outcome reached Set up multiple design systems in multiple locations, design improvement between testings, obvious participation Multiple attempts at spatial intervention actions, obvious reactions, obvious improvement Designs are developed and tested, social provocation is
etc Process Development
Documentation Techniques
no sign of development through process
Obvious process with little development
Basic documentation, no evidence of various techniques or improvement
Basic types of documenting, small evidence of improvement
Evidence of development throughout entire process, process is documented along the way Exploration with various ways of documenting, evidence of improvement
evident Clear process, sophisticated development of project, documented process, clear outcome of process In depth documentation that explores multiple documenting techniques, great improvement, high quality
INFORMAL URBAN PRACTICE
2.
Mid-semester self-assessment
Student name: Meg McMillan Import the above criteria
CRITERIA
1 Community engagement techniques
What indicates the current levels of your performance and achievement in the studio against each criteria? Describe in detail the indicators (evidence) of quality at the level of performance you honestly believe you have achieved so far. In less detail, describe what would indicate if you had achieved above or below your proposed level. ‘SATISFACTORY’ ‘GOOD’ ‘VERY GOOD’ ‘OUTSTANDING’ PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS INDICATORS INDICATORS INDICATORS Used community engagement techniques through various projects. Most dealt with how community reacted to various situations. More attempts, or various attempts could have been made.
2 Detail design development 3 Collaborative idea generation
4
Testing design systems with public participation
5 Spatial intervention tactics
n/a Worked with other members in a group to decide on possible ideas for various projects. Group was able to successfully come up with multiple ideas. Process of design system testing, evidence of improvements of systems, some public participation; informal urban practices that were undertaken caused some public participation but mainly just reactions Multiple attempts at spatial intervention actions, obvious reactions, obvious improvement:invading personal space was done multiple times, adjusting attempts to see which ways
got best reactions; red string caused people to interact with it; multiple attempts at leaving cell phone and adjusting attempts to see what gave best outcome; fashion commentary gave wide range of reactions 6 Design for social provocation
etc Process Development
Documentation Techniques
CRITERIA RELEVANT UP TO MID SEMESTER ONLY List criteria (if any) that you believe only relates to your work up to mid-semester.
1 2
Designs are developed and tested, social provocation is evident: multiple attempts at social provocation has been taken, improvements between attempts have been adjusted and made, reactions from others have been seen in various ways throughout process, multiple attempts have been made looking for better solutions, outcome of attempts is evident, documentation of process could have been better Documentation done on time, fully documentedmeets requirements, some improvement in techniques, various use of documentation techniques