Framing new knowledge

Author: valentina

Created: 2021-09-18 01:04am

Edited: 2021-09-29 06:06pm

Keywords: face to face peer review; online peer review, STREAM; Supervision

Description:

Context
This is the third lesson within the second part of a Master's course. Whereas the first part deals with well-established theory methodologies and practical application of integrated computational design, the second part tests their validity for the currently mostly research-oriented design of responsive structures.
The proposed lesson is the only one dealing with the interdisciplinary field of smart materials, whose possible impact on architectural engineering is yet to be clearly evaluated. The lesson shall balance between on one side, discuss and evaluate the role of smart materials in architectural engineering (theory), on the other side, support the students working on their final proposal for a responsive structure (exploratory research)
Lesson Aims
To introduce students to smart materials for architectural engineering;
to promote their critical thinking by foster their ability to focus on the role of a construction element within the design, behind its usual physical implementation;
to improve students’ soft skills;
to think ahead on how shall they structure their continuous learning during the profession

Intended Learning Outcomes:

Identify the constraints and opportunities that smart materials can bring to architectural design
Communicate effectively key aspects relevant to stakeholders
Collaborative working: provide constructive feedback to peers
Being able to search references
Categorize a selected smart material within an existing framework

Resources	Tasks		Supports
Mentimeter Word Cloud	Students write the requirements of future buildings components ↓	←	The instructor presents the UN sustainability goals
At the end of the previous lesson
Peergrade	Students in groups search a material family among a given list, they categorizes its instric proprieties under prescribed charts. They envision its possible opportunities and challanges for architectural structures (actuation / parallel element / serial element). ↓	←	The instructor provides the classification charts for smart materials
Peergrade	Each group asks questions on at least 2 other submissions. ↓	←	NA
Before the lesson
Resource	Groups answer to the questions emerged from peergrade ↓	←	The instructor provides support if the students gets stacked
vis-a-vis	Each group lists the performances that the assigned building component shall fullfill. ↓	←	The instructor recalls the organization of the construction components (envelope, internal subdivision, structure) and assigns a building component category to each group.
Padlet	Each group selects one smart material. They envision a possible application of their interest to one or more of the listed requirements from the previous lesson. ↓	←	NA
vis-a-vis	Each group try to <sell> the technique to the students representing the relevant component, who act as cautious stakeholders ↓	←	The instructor moderates the debate; in case adding comments to favor the discussion
During the lesson
potentially, brightspace discussion forum. most likely, email and in class	Deliverable Consider your envisioned responsive structure, consider what elements may benefit from smart materials, if such materials exist, and what are the challenges to implementation	←	Q&A time in class
After the class - homework for final report

Additional information

Challenges
From a knowledge viewpoint, smart materials are variously based on certain intrinsic proprieties, but little effort has been paid to insert them within the architectural engineering framework of materials. An open discussion instead that the instructor providing his viewpoint seems to be the right strategy
From a didactic viewpoint, shall be ready to provide challenging questions if the discussion does not proceed
From an organizational viewpoint, the time schedule for each activity may be slightly flexible, students may not be willing to speak in class. However, the most active part comes at the end, the possibility to start either as a speaker or as a questioner may relax them
Indicators of impact
The validity of the proposed implementation of the STREAM model will be visible in the engagement that students demonstrate in the vis -a vis activities. Furthermore, the course requires a final report where students also discuss how they envision the role of smart materials for a tentative responsive structure that they shall envision. They shall start addressing this point as homework for the proposed lesson.