|Monday, June 22|
Exploration on Differences between Reality and Imagination in Freshman Architectural Design Course
* Ting-Ting Cheng, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan (Republic of China)
Li-wen Sung, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan (Republic of China)
The purpose of this research is to explore how the first-year students of Department of Architecture perceive the differences and understand the architectural design when they are put under either the actual field or the simulated environment in the classroom. Adopted in this research are two design questions, whose common point is that students are required to visit the site to observe its actual environment and then develop their own projects. The difference lies in the operation methods. One is to bring their environmental observations back to the classroom for further processing, while the other is to directly operate the actual construction on the field. This research applies the field survey method and the data analysis method to integrate and analyze so as to understand how the students use different creative methods to interpret the relationship between people and environments. Professional architectural training begins with the creation of a simulated space, including drawings and models. Therefore, students will use their abstract thinking skills, case collection and analysis capabilities to express their own design. Students use imagination to respond to issues in real spaces but may ignore some details when reducing the drawing scale. However, these details are often important architectural issues. In addition, to increase students’ sensitivity to the environmental conditions, the design courses are so designed to push students to look for elements of creation through observation. For the first question, students are required to visit a remote community and divide the environmental records of the site into spatial elements such as line, surface, and volume then return to work out their creation at the studio. For the second question, students need to carry out actual operations in the city. Different from the operation procedures in the first question, students are asked to firstly observe the environment and then discuss their creations with their group of classmates in the classroom. After the case is determined, the students go directly to the field to begin and adjust their construction method to accommodate different issues in the actual situations. After three years of observation and comparison with the research data, I have preliminarily found that when students gave priority to understanding the limitations of the actual environment, they could not only design better works with local characteristics but observe their own shortcomings in understanding the environment. In contrast, those students who first prepared their design project in the studio and then created on the spot could better consider the complex problems in the actual environment and design the building spaces in a more objective manner. At present, we have found in this research that by comparing these two questions, students could learn about design in multiple angles and provide more connections between environments and people in their future creations. In the future, this research also hopes to develop a design training course that balances these two levels so as to feed back to the future teaching content of first-year architectural design course.
The transformation and flexible Design strategies for Future learning environment in China on evidence-based research
* Jie Ding, South China University of Technology, China
Education is experiencing the transformation from Edu 2.0 to Edu 3.0, including the teaching concept, school curriculum, learning styles, etc., which are gradually influenced by information technology. Architecture and education are entwined. Its design concept and spatial configuration should be changed with the transformation of education over time. However, there are some contradictions between the current situation and the future development trends of school design in China, which are mainly reflected in the following aspects: 1) Changes in the size of school-age population in the next decade may dramatically influence the flexible demand for the supply of educational resources and learning space configuration; 2) At present, the design pattern of learning space is still matched with the typical characteristics of traditional education, which is teacher-centered and instructionist learning, and It cannot adapt to the diversified requirements of teaching space in the new period; 3) the current design standards of K value is in contradiction with some actual teaching needs, and the use efficiency of the building internal space cannot be effectively measured and evaluated; 4) the lack of flexible space design leads to the limitation of students' informal learning and communication. Therefore, for the school architectural design in the new era, the degree of space openness as well as flexibility of configuration still needs to be greatly improved. How to actively respond towards these flexible Challenges by adaptable design will become the focus of future architectural research. This study is divided into two parts: 1) It summarizes the existing problems and future demand of learning space based on the literature review and case studies in the past 20 years. Then it proposes five flexible spatial design strategies from four levels of elements, structure, function and system, which are convertibility, Rearrange-ability, multi-functionality, neutral Functionality and system sharing, so as to answer the question of how to achieve flexible learning space design;2) A large number of typical cases are selected for data analysis and comparison of K value of traditional learning space efficiency index, revealing the evolution principles and numerical change of space pattern. On this basis, a new definition of F value is proposed as the evaluation index of flexible space. The result shows that the space has a high utilization rate when the F value > 0.6, which can be used as an evaluation standard for the adaptive space configuration of school building in the future. In this study, a flexible learning design framework has been initially constructed from the space pattern, design strategies, and evaluation index, so as to provide quantitative and qualitative research reference for future practice and research of school building in china.
Walking to school or being brought by car? - Environmental determinants of children's active school travel
* Juliane Schicketanz, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Germany
Sigrun Kabisch, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Germany
Tobia Lakes, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany
Background: Insufficient physical activity among children appears to be a worldwide trend (Guthold et al. 2019) It is associated with motoric deficits, poor mental health, overweight and type 2 diabetes (WHO 2010). Various determinants play a role for low physical activity rates: genetic disposition, individual lifestyle, family and peers, and socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions. The socio-ecological model from Dahlgren and Whitehead (1991) captures these dimensions and has been used for many empirical studies on physical activity of children. However, what has not been addressed so far in detail are the determinants on active travel to school. Objective: The primary objective of this study is therefore to analyze why active school travel is distributed unequally among children in urban areas? We hypothesize that not only individual and family variables, but also urban environmental characteristics influence active travel. Method: The methodological design of this study consists of three parts. In the first part we focus on quantitative variables. From a cohort study 217 8-year old children and their school travel behavior analyzed. The dataset was extended by several spatial datasets that characterize the neighborhood of the place of residence, such as population density, employment rate and car ownership. In addition, we calculated the routes from place of residence to school and derived variables such as length of route and type of natural and built environment along the route. We applied descriptive statistics to identify the most relevant variables and principal component analysis to group the variables. To identify factors that influence active school travel we used ordered logistic regression. In a next step, we will conduct walking interviews with children at the age of 8 and their parents to receive in-depth information on personal decision-making and perceptions on active school travel. Using a mixed-methods approach allows us to integrate our quantitative and qualitative findings. Preliminary results: Statistical analysis shows route length, road type and social environment to affect active school travel most. Surprisingly, none of the individual and family level factors were significant for active school travel. In this study, active school travel was not related to children’s overweight risk and the other way round. Conclusion: Our initial results show that the modal choice to school varies substantially between the children and that route length, road type and social environment affect the choice most. The longer the routes, the more traffic and the lower the population density the more likely is the choice of using a car. From our initial findings we conclude that particularly the route to school determines the modal choice. This does imply that the demand and supply of schools (including the discussion about private and public schools) and the school district delineation may need consideration. To augment the analysis in more detail by individual perceptions we hope to be able to include this in a next step.