Overview and summary of the accumulated project knowledge

 

 

 

 

ARCHI21 is an EU‐funded project which aims to get students to use 3D virtual immersive and Web 

2.0  environments  and  to  promote  the  potentialities  of  these  environments  in  the  fields  of 

architecture  and  design.  By  adopting  a  CLIL  (Content  and  Language  Integrated  Learning) 

approach, ARCHI21 also seeks to facilitate language learning, while accompanying the process of 

competence building in architecture and design. 

 

ARCHI21 involves six institutional partners in four countries: 

‐ Coordination: École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Paris Malaquais (ENSAPM, France) ; 

‐ Centre international d’études pédagogiques (CIEP, France); 

‐ The Open University (OU, United Kingdom); 

‐ Univerza v Ljubljani – Fakulteta za Arhitekturo (UL‐FA, Slovenia); 

‐ Aalborg Universitet (AAU, Denmark); 

‐ The University of Southampton (SO, United Kingdom). 

                                            

                

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                      

A document produced by Scott C. Chase, Aalborg University, Denmark 

with contributions by all ARCHI21 project partners 

Overview and summary of the accumulated project knowledge

TableofContents

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................6 

ARCHI21partneracronyms............................................................................................................................6 

Terminologyusedontheproject..................................................................................................................6 

ARCHI21workpackagesdescribedinthisreport.................................................................................7 

ContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL)..............................................................................7 

KeyPerformanceIndicator(KPI)Framework:CLILinBlended2DSocialMedia/3DImmersiveEnvironments(WP2).............................................................................................................7 

ReferenceFrameworkofSkills:TowardsaprofileforCLILteachersinhigherschoolsofarchitecture(WP10).................................................................................................................................8 

GuidelinesforsettingupaCLILlanguagecourseadaptedtotheneedsofstudentsathigherschoolsofarchitecture(WP10).................................................................................................8 

GuidetosettingupaCLILprojectappliedtoarchitectureinHigherEducation(WP10)...................................................................................................................................................................................9 

Induction3D(WP9)...........................................................................................................................................11 

Induction............................................................................................................................................................11 

Cybergogy..........................................................................................................................................................14 

Patternsforlanguagelearninginadesigncontext(WP8).............................................................20 

Methodology.....................................................................................................................................................20 

Benchmarkdesignpatterns......................................................................................................................21 

ODSandpatternconstructionworkshops........................................................................................23 

1stworkshopondatagatheringandpatternconstruction......................................................24 

2ndworkshopondatagatheringandpatternconstruction.....................................................24 

PatternsfortheuseofCLILindesignandarchitecturalteachinginonlinemedia.......24 

LearningObjects(WP14)................................................................................................................................26 

ActionLearningStage1(WP4)....................................................................................................................27 

OpenUniversityteachingexercise(WP4).........................................................................................27 

CritIMPACT(WP4).......................................................................................................................................30 

SLBuildingandLightingclasses(WP4&WP5).............................................................................31 

UL‐FAclasses:‘SpaceandMedia’&‘Conceptsofstructures’(WP4)....................................33 

ActionLearningStage2Transnational(WP5).....................................................................................36 

LJ‐FAclasses‘SpaceandMedia’and’Lightingindesign’(WP5)............................................36 

ENSAPMurbandesignstudio(WP5)...................................................................................................37 

ActionLearningStage3:Pilot(WP6)........................................................................................................38 

LJ‐FAworkshop‘LightingGuerrilla’(WP6)......................................................................................38 

ENSAPMVIFclass&ARCHIChat(WP6)............................................................................................39 

Onlineconference(WP1)................................................................................................................................41 

CLILimplementation:Conclusionsandoutlook.............................................................................42 

References..............................................................................................................................................................43 

6

IntroductionThis document is a report of selected shared knowledge construction throughout the ARCHI21

project. It provides an overview of project activities and outcomes.

The report is organised by type of knowledge generated, workpackage or activity; thus, some

acquired knowledge shown here may not reference the actual workpackage in which it was

generated. The project partner responsible for each action is identified in the descriptions.

Given that the ARCHI21 project consists of many interconnected parts (workpackages and

partner collaborations), there is always the possibility of repetition and redundancy. While there is

some in this report, an attempt has been made to limit repetition of the acquired knowledge by

different partners and in separate actions.

As this report can only provide an overview of activities and outcomes, it is recommended to

also read individual reports and guides from the various workpackages.

ARCHI21partneracronymsENSAPM: École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Paris Malaquais

CIEP: Centre international d’études pédagogiques

OU: The Open University

UL-FA: Univerza v Ljubljani – Fakulteta za Arhitekturo

AAU: Aalborg Universitet

SO: The University of Southampton

TerminologyusedontheprojectTarget language is an additional language for the student (i.e. not their primary language) in which

some teaching and learning will occur. An aim of CLIL in ARCHI21 is for the student to (further)

develop capabilities in the target language through its use in the design curriculum. English, Slovene

and French were the project target languages.

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.

External language teacher refers to a language teacher that is not a member of the institutional

staff. External language teachers have experience working with students but in most cases not

experience in working with content teachers.

External language mediator refers to a person trained by in CLIL and Cybergogy (Scopes 2009)

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

7

being well versed in in-world teaching techniques and most mediators are language teachers.

External 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.

ARCHI21workpackagesdescribedinthisreportWP4 Action Learning Stage 1

WP5 Action Learning Stage 2 Transnational

WP6 Action Learning Stage 3: Pilot

WP8 Patterns for language learning in a design context

WP9 Induction 3D

WP14 Development (Learning Objects)

ContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL)KeyPerformanceIndicator(KPI)Framework:CLILinBlended2DSocialMedia/3DImmersiveEnvironments(WP2)

Authors: EduCluster Finland Ltd., University of Jyväskylä, Finland and ENSAPM

Full report: http://archi21.eu/resources/clil-kpi-framework/

There is no simple formula for introducing innovation such as Content and Language Integrated

Learning (CLIL) into higher education contexts. But there are principles of good practice which have

been found in ARCHI21, and in other experiences across Europe.

Key Performance Indicator Frameworks can be used for three main purposes with respect to

CLIL programmes. They show which different part of the system need to be responsive; provide a

pathway for exploring systemic aspects which influence achievement of success; and, then they can

be used for measuring success over a given period of time.

The ARCHI21 Framework is designed for consideration in different types of higher education. It

is both experience and research-driven, and is not presented as a definitive formula. It is based on a

systemic overview of L2 programming in higher education through use of 2D social media & 3D

immersive environments in architecture & design using CLIL. The Framework can be modified and

applied to L2 programmes in other higher education contexts.

The Performance Indicators are divided into five categories:

Strategy & Governance

L2 Programme Management

Professional Integration

Infrastructure & Technical

Performance Outcomes

8

ReferenceFrameworkofSkills:TowardsaprofileforCLILteachersinhigherschoolsofarchitecture(WP10)

Author: CIEP

English language report: http://archi21.eu/reference-framework-clil-teacher/

French language report: http://archi21.eu/resources/referentiels-emile/

The objectives of the two reference frameworks of skills presented in this report are firstly to explain

the mission entrusted to teachers of architecture as a non-linguistic university discipline, and

secondly, that entrusted to language teachers working in higher schools of architecture and design.

Rooted in the professional logic of the actors to whom they are addressed, these tools describe the

work situations that constitute these teachers’ fields of action, methodically associating them with the

target skills expected of them, crosscutting and specific—in other words, resources to make use of in

order to accomplish the various tasks required, in a CLIL context.

Clarifying the knowledge, know-how and attitudes expected of architecture and foreign modern

language teachers will enable European higher schools and faculties of architecture and design to

provide better support for their teaching staff in the practice of their profession and, more widely, to

adapt their management of human resources to training and recruitment. These tools may also be

used for evaluation and self-evaluation of teachers, in order to identify professional needs and define

training objectives integrating such needs, as well as to develop teamwork and synergies, and to

assist with the accreditation of prior experience. In addition, they will facilitate targeted recruitment by

helping schools create targeted job profiles which better describe the positions in question. The

definition of quality criteria, presented in a framework accepted by the institution and by the teachers

themselves, can only serve to further support and improve the quality of the programmes and

education provided to students.

The skills reference bases are organised by phases:

1. (Teachers of architecture) Engagement with the overarching objectives of the school

or faculty (teachers of architecture)

/Language teachers) Committing to a school project

2. Designing a module

3. Managing and facilitating

4. Evaluating

GuidelinesforsettingupaCLILlanguagecourseadaptedtotheneedsofstudentsathigherschoolsofarchitecture(WP10)

Author: CIEP

English language report: http://archi21.eu/resources/clil-language-course/

French language report: http://archi21.eu/resources/cours-de-langue-emile/

This report proposes components for a module whose linguistic and cultural content bears directly

upon the disciplinary and crosscutting competences expected from students of architecture, with a

9

view to providing support for reworking of university architecture curricula by progressive development

of synergies between disciplinary teaching and modern language, as provided for by the CLIL

approach.

The programme is presented in the form of a table: for each unit, contextualised communicative

objectives are listed (“At university”), alongside the corresponding disciplinary and methodological

objectives that seek to make the architecture student more autonomous in his/her studies (“Towards

autonomy”).

The 16 units follow a progression based on the recommendations and levels of the Common

European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL), following a progression from levels A1 to

B2, and include:

1. Let me introduce myself!

2. I’m studying architecture!

3. I’m studying!

4. I learn by doing!

5. I know where it is!

6. That’s interesting!

7. I like that!

8. I’ll explain!

9. That’s the way it is!

10. Looking for information!

11. Here’s the result!

12. It’s due in tomorrow!

13. I’m going to present my work!

14. What are you trying to say?

15. So it would appear…

16. That’s a valid point!

GuidetosettingupaCLILprojectappliedtoarchitectureinHigherEducation(WP10)

Author: CIEP

English language report: http://archi21.eu/resources/clil-guide/

French language report: http://archi21.eu/resources/guide-emile/

It is of interest to approach the teaching of architecture across Europe in relation to the cultural and

linguistic diversity which characterises the continent and think about ways in which this may be

successfully exploited. CLIL-based teaching of architecture cannot simply be reduced to an attempt to

teach a foreign language (by transposing the material used in a traditional language class, for

example); the real goal is rather to open up new horizons of thought to future architects: by learning

another language and in another language, students also acquaint themselves with other cultures,

learning to step back and take account of the world from different viewpoints and to practise their

10

professions in new ways. To develop a linguistic and cultural aspect to the teaching/learning of

architecture is to help future professionals to construct their projects with a better understanding of the

specificities of territories and societies as well as of the representations and uses inherent in them.

Based upon analysis of the state of play with regard to the teaching/learning of architecture in

higher education (Section I), this tool is designed for use by education officials, to help facilitate

strategic decision-making (Section II) as well as by teachers of foreign languages and of architecture

in foreign languages, to help with didactic and pedagogical implementation of the principles of CLIL

(Section III). It is presented as a tool for general but practical reflection, acting as a basis for design

and implementation of educational pathways that respond to the issues in question and to specific

needs expressed in a wide variety of contexts. The structure of the report is as follows:

II. Teaching and studying architecture : conditions favouring development of a CLIL project

1. Interdisciplinarity and decompartmentalising areas of knowledge

2. Central to teaching and learning: project work

3. The studio, a place for intercomprehension

III. Innovating and enhancing the attractiveness of higher schools of architecture : recommendations

to decision makers

1. CLIL as a way of fostering the international dimension

2. Towards progressive inclusion in curricula

3. Teacher training, a crucial point

IV. Implementing the CLIL approach: from principles to pedagogical practice

1. Setting up a concerted and coordinated educational action

2. Defining the language needs of students taking architecture courses in a foreign

language

3. Developing learning and knowledge building strategies

Higher schools of architecture provide very favourable ground for development of CLIL models,

adopting an approach that has yet to gain a real foothold in Europe’s university landscape.

Incorporating a language aspect into existing disciplinary practices is a way for such institutions to

give their curricula an added value, progressively renewing them while providing an interesting and

strategic innovative path likely to strengthen their openness to the world at large, along with their

capacity to attract students, in a context of growing competitiveness. Of the specificities identified in

architecture, project work most probably merits special attention in the work towards the

modernisation of practices currently underway, because it is central to an architect’s initial training

and is carried out throughout the course programme, which would seem to draw all its coherence and

meaning from it.

Implementing a project for teaching architecture in a foreign language is an ambitious

undertaking, a demanding challenge that can only be met by motivated, united and, above all, well

qualified educational teams. Dialogue and cooperation between institutions, managers and teachers

would seem essential conditions for its success. The changes in practices and transfers of experience

11

that have taken place in the context of the ARCHI21 project, the first stone in the coming edifice to be

laid, provide ample proof of this.

Induction3D(WP9)Coordinator: SO

Induction

The aim of Work Package 9 was to explore the concept of language mediation under the model of

CLIL and the model of cybergogy (Scopes 2009) in the context of architecture teaching through the

induction of language specialists into teaching and learning in an in-world environment. In this project,

‘Induction’ refers to the three dimensions of teaching and learning in a virtual world environment of:

architecture, language and cybergogy – it is bringing CLIL into a virtual world context. The induction

processes were facilitated through face-to-face, online and in-world activity. The processes were

monitored and reflected upon by participants through evaluation forms. The direct outputs of this

process are in the form of presentations and in-world structures. There is also a refined description of

CLIL based upon in-world activity. The evidence base contains evaluations, summaries and reports.

The non-tangible output of the activity is the training (induction) of 30 UK-based language mediators,

a further number of EU-based mediators, the language development of the mediators, the

technological development of mediators, the engagement of mediators, technicians, architects and

teachers in the CLIL processes.

The objectives of WP9 were:

• the development, testing and piloting of the virtual world induction course that includes

aspects of a developing model of CLIL, cybergogy and an understanding of learning in a

virtual world and architecture teaching principles;

• the development, testing and piloting of the virtual language mediator induction course which

exploits face-to-face, online and in-world activities;

• the design, realisation and implementation of a hub (Discovery Decks) giving access to other

subject specific (architecture) experiences and providing the accommodation for teaching and

learning;

• the design, realisation and implementation of a training environment that supports 2D/3D

interaction;

• the design and implementation of the training sessions for language mediators;

• the employment of virtual language mediators (skilled language teachers) to support the

students in their induction and exploration of architecture materials; and

• the coordination of the participation of partner groups in the provision of language mediators.

The innovative aspects were in the in-world orientation, navigation and dexterity training units.

12

Methodology

The methodology was to exploit the affordances of blended (face-to-face and in-world) activities with

synchronous and asynchronous activity enabling participants to interact even though they were in

different places and at different times. The sessions were structured upon presentations (available as

downloadable files) and guides sessions in the in-world hub specifically designed for the work. The

Discovery Decks built on the ARCH21 Second Life island are an important product of this activity.

The keyword of the activity is ‘Induction’. It refers to the three dimensions of teaching and

learning in a virtual world environment of architecture, language and cybergogy – it is bringing CLIL

into a virtual world context.

The induction processes involved 30 language specialists based in a UK university and a

number of other mediators based across the EU including the UK, Denmark, France and Slovenia.

A tangible output was a refined definition of CLIL that reflects the novel context of in-world

teaching and learning. The original briefing of CLIL for mediators stated:

Content and language integrated learning is founded on educational approaches where the curriculum content and language learning are fully integrated. Within ARCHI21, it is the development of multi-literacy enabling learning in virtual worlds. The challenge is to ensure that the pursuit of language learning aims does not compromise the pursuit of curriculum aims. The aspects of the curriculum to be taught through CLIL methods should be those that are enhanced by materials in the language. The aspects of language learning that are focussed upon are those that are authentic and most relevant to the curriculum and the immediate needs of the students.

CLIL in the context of European Higher Education was considered. At present, CLIL type approaches

are frequently becoming adopted in European higher education in the fields of law, business,

economics, engineering, medicine and humanities. Predominantly they appear at MA level, often as

degree programmes which are either fully delivered in a foreign/target language (most frequently

English) or contain extensive modules delivered in the target language. At BA and postgraduate

levels, students may take ‘content’ modules or individual lectures in a foreign language. Language

support is delivered both as direct contact teaching and using blended approaches with elearning

methodology / distance learning. As CLIL requires new kinds of collaboration between subject

specialists and language specialists it is important to acknowledge that new kinds of pedagogical

practices are also required and that interdisciplinary meanings have to be negotiated for the role of

language in knowledge construction and sharing. In principle, the language learning outcomes in CLIL

are considered from a functional and communicative viewpoint, which is in line with the descriptors of

the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEF). This implies interactive

pedagogical approaches and carefully designed learning tasks, as well as institutional support

systems for both students and teachers.

Learning design

The methodology taken in regard to mediators is fully described in the presentations and notes

associated with the mediator induction course. Both the pedagogy of in-world teaching and learning

(cybergogy) and CLIL were fully explained to mediators. In addition, there was extensive induction

into in-world activity (with extra sessions being prepared in response to mediators’ requests). In terms

13

of data capture, the methodology was enhanced by the provision of systematic recording sheets.

Towards the end of the process a form of discourse or mis-cue analysis was established.

The modus operandi of language mediators was to act as support for the in-world teacher

responding both to the teacher requests and also responding to the in-world learners. A second role

developed as observer/critic giving asynchronous feedback on learner outputs. Language mediator

feedback was provided to several ENSAPM students asynchronously by email following viewing of

their presentations on the Knovio presentation platform. Comments focussed specifically on students’

language use and presentational skills.

The development of the in-world induction environment (dexterity) was based upon the

theoretical construct of cybergogy which identifies the different facet of epistemology that are

pertinent to teaching and learning virtual worlds. The presentation of cybergogy in the hub was

structured as a ‘walk-through experience with space playing an important role in the way in which the

training of mediators was carried out. Similarly, the dexterity area was an environment that was

explored as the mediators in their induction developed the skills of being and teaching in a virtual

world.

Another aspect of the work package was the development of eLearning Object: Introduction to

Cybergogy (see WP14 Learning Object section)

Data capture and method of analysis

An important aspect of the induction and work of language mediators was the evaluation process. The

evaluations have been analysed and they play an important part in developing the conclusion for the

project. The evaluation sheet was based upon a well-developed strategy for evaluating real-world

teaching and learning which included reference to: profession attributes, professional knowledge and

understanding and professional skills.

Evaluation

The mediators’ reflections upon their role and the conduct of the in-world teaching sessions provide

some insights to the motivations, preparedness and abilities of the learners. In some cases there are

measures of language acquisition, commentary on social engagement and levels of motivation. These

conclusions are drawn from cross-analysis of the report sheets, coding and the development of

themes (categories).

Lessons learned

The affordances of the technologies for learning were identified as:

providing opportunities for teaching and learning not limited by geographical location of the

participants;

providing opportunities for teaching and learning outside the normal working hours of the

participants;

providing different means of communicating feedback to learners;

integrating conventional pedagogies with cybergogy

14

Challenges

Concerning the challenges, a characteristic of most reports and a characteristic of most events are

the technological issues. In the main they are challenges and problems; in some cases they are

affordances. This study is both haunted and enhanced by technology.

Lessons learned were identified as the need to:

keep it simple (technologically);

keep it simple (language demands);

keep it simple (within the cybergogy range)

A major element of the dissemination is the enrichment of teaching and learning in virtual world

programmes in the University of Southampton which celebrates the findings:

the affordances of cybergogy to explain teaching and learning;

the values of CLIL as an integrated approach;

the features of the Discovery Decks to structure and manage teaching activities in-world;

and

the nature of the dexterity area to motivate and give confidence to in-world novices.

An important product of the process of developing and implementing the Induction Course was the in-

world resource that explains the principles of good CLIL practice based upon a comprehensive view

of the subject (Coyle et al. 2010). To help communicate meanings and derivations to mediators, an

expanded form was located in a specifically designed Mediator Induction Course called Archi21

Moodle. These ‘CLIL Tips for Mediators’ can be seen in the ARCHI21 project report Tools and

guidelines for architectural and language communication teaching and learning within immersive

online environments (Chase 2013).

Conclusions

The value of the models of CLIL and cybergogy cannot be underestimated in ensuring that mediators

were well informed of the processes that they were undertaking.

The technological challenges, for some respondents, were greater that the benefits of the

activity but for others teaching and learning in a virtual world proved to be liberating and exciting.

A significant result of the project has been the enrichment of teaching and learning in virtual

world programmes in the University of Southampton which celebrates the findings:

the affordances of cybergogy to explain teaching and learning;

the values of CLIL as an integrated approach;

the features of the Discovery Decks to structure and manage teaching activities in-world;

and

the nature of the dexterity area to motivate and give confidence to in-world novices.

Cybergogy

The Model of Cybergogy of Learning Archetypes and Learning Domains (Scopes 2009,

http://www.cybergogy.co.uk is a social constructivist tool for educators wishing to teach within the

15

relatively new medium of 3D immersive Virtual Worlds (3DiVW) such as Second Life®. The model is

comprised of two interacting components; Learning Archetypes and Learning Domains. Learning

Archetypes are categories of learning activities that are ideal for a social-centric 3D virtual

environment. The model currently has 5 classifications of Learning Archetypes:

Roleplay

Simulation

Peregrination

Meshed

Assessment/Evaluation

Each archetype is further broken down into frames and sub-frames which serve to hone them towards

eliciting particular learning outcomes.

Learning Domains (Figure 1) are the second component of the model. These are strands drawn

from established pedagogy, combined to form a new Blended Taxonomy of Learning Domains. There

are four Learning Domains catered to by the model:

Cognitive

Emotional

Dextrous

Social

Figure1TheBlendedTaxonomyofLearningDomains

By addressing Learning Domains in various combinations, all available sensibilities of the user can be

drawn forth into the avatar mediated 3D environment. An Instructional Designer/Educator is able to

16

engineer the content of Learning Archetypes to elicit a response from all domains at the desired level

of implementation based on preferred learning outcomes.

A Cybergogy information deck and Dexterity practice course were built on the ARCHI21 island

and used during induction sessions for ARCHI21 participants.

Aims, objectives and approach taken

To introduce the model of Cybergogy into aspects of teaching and learning occurring in the

3DiVW within the ARCHI21 project.

To evaluate the evolution of the model throughout its application within the project.

To hone the model to cater to aspects of the teaching of design and architecture with a

focus on CLIL.

Methodology

The Cybergogy model was presented and used at a number of internal ARCHI21 event for project

participants, including induction sessions and planning for ARCHI21 Second Life building classes.

During these sessions, it was expected that that attendees had experienced a general induction to

Second Life which included checking technological aspects such as ensuring their local computer

systems capabilities for adequate internet connectivity to sustain sessions in-world using VoIP (voice)

and that the machine processing power was able to run the Second Life viewer

Learners, their response and outcomes

Following an initial ‘Introduction to Cybergogy’ session to project partners at the Cybergogy Deck, the

first week long intensive action took place (ENSAPM, WP4). The content teachers involved in this

action did not actively use the model, and there was no consultation to the model made by the

language teachers from UBP either. It can only be concluded that these teachers were resistant to

adaptation of traditional methods despite the teaching and learning occurring in a non-traditional

environment.

With regard to the Language Mediator Training in September 2011, unfortunately, of the cohort

of mediators attending the first session, none had a language background, all being student teachers

of Information Technology and therefore were unable to enter fully into the Roleplay activity as

intended. It is believed that the attendees understood their roles as technical mediators instead.

This group had spent some time perfecting dexterity (Dextrous Domain Level 3 and above).

Some individuals had developed an interest in the social aspects of Second Life such as

personalising their avatars (Social Learning Domain, level 1) and attending events that promoted their

meeting and socialising with other users (Social Domain, level 3 and 4). It is believed that the

increased amount of time and effort invested by some of the postgraduate IT students was due to a

genuine interest in the possibilities and affordances of the virtual world in an educational context,

perhaps coupled generally with more confidence in technology. This group attended the in-world

presentation of the Model of Cybergogy. The technical mediators asked many relevant questions and

during assessment of learning, appeared to understand the differences and similarities between

traditional pedagogy, andragogy and cybergogy.

17

The following evening, attendees were Language Mediators from ARCHI21 partners. Some

technical mediators re-attended the evening session. They proved to be very useful in that capacity

because communication was not particularly effective between the cohort and the leader mainly due

to technical difficulties. Because the event was in the evening, this group of language mediators

mainly accessed Second Life from their home equipment. In some cases, individual’s computer

systems were not of the necessary capacity to sustain the demands placed on them by Second Life.

The SO technical mediators supported these issues, in some circumstances using Skype as a back-

up communication channel while participants who were struggling with maintaining connectivity were

coached through the process of re-establishing a Second Life presence. The more experienced

mediators provided peer to peer dexterity training following the format they had been shown in prior

induction sessions.

With regard to the SL building classes in 2011, it was found that the learning curve for SL and

similar 3D immersive virtual worlds tends to be considerably higher than a novice typically anticipates.

In evaluation of these sessions it was concluded that the amount of time required for both induction

and building classes needed to be greater than that allocated for our activities; this includes time for

students to explore independently, thus giving participants an adequate skill foundation to participate

in the building classes and experience the social and cultural diversity of virtual worlds. The limited

amount of contact time for the classes and many participants’ lack of prior experience in-world were

factors that led to insufficient accomplishment of some of the desired learning outcomes. The result

was that the students’ subsequent use of SL for their design projects was not as extensive as

anticipated.

Outcomes and conclusions

Some Learning Archetypes have been extended owing to experiences over the course of the

ARCHI21 Project:

The Simulation Archetype (Figure 2) has been adapted to reflect aspects of design. The

Frame is extended by the addition of Virtual Design, Prototyping and 3D Modelling while

the sub frame now contains ‘Realistic’ and ‘Metaphoric’ both of which can be applied to all

the previous frames.

The Peregrination Archetype (Figure 3) has adopted a ‘Reconnaissance’ frame following

observation of events during the ‘CritIMPACT’ activities of the project (ENSAPM, WP4).

Had the model been involved with those activities, generally speaking, they would have

fallen within the ‘Escorted exploration’ frame. However, the aspect of academic critique

associated with the nature of ‘CritIMPACT’ served as motivation for the Model of

Cybergogy to cater for the nature of investigation and critical review as in a

reconnaissance. (Peregrination > Reconnaissance > Escorted).

The Meshed Archetype (Figure 4) has adopted two new Frames, those of ‘Affiliation’ and

‘Collaboration’ to reflect the flavour the project aspired to. Subsequently, a new sub frame

of ‘Inter-Institutional’ has been included which can be associated with all the pre-existing

frames.

18

The Roleplay and Assessment/Evaluation Archetypes (Figure 5 & Figure 6) remain

unchanged from the 2009 version of the model.

Figure2TheSimulationArchetype

Figure3ThePeregrinationArchetype

19

Figure4TheMeshedArchetype

Figure5TheRole‐PlayArchetype

20

Figure6TheAssessmentArchetype

Patternsforlanguagelearninginadesigncontext(WP8)Coordinator: OU

The Open University team was responsible for the workpackage ‘Patterns for language learning in a

design context‘, i.e. patterns for the use of CLIL in design and architecture delivered through online

media. The aims of the workpackage were:

To identify benchmark patterns in the context of design education in English

To use the identified patterns to guide language learning in design

To identify new patterns specific to non-English students

For the purpose of the ARCHI21 project, patterns refer to learning and teaching practices that use

online media in the context of design education. The focus is on the integration of language learning

with design learning. The teaching elements of the project comprised several workshops conducted

over two years using a variety of communication media. The commonality of all of these workshops

was the engagement of students, architecture or design teachers, and CLIL teachers and mediators.

The patterns, or guidelines for practice, were distilled from observations of teaching sessions, student

feedback and interviews with all partners. The patterns present a series of points for consideration

when adopting a content and language integrated learning approach in the context of architecture and

design teaching.

Methodology

The aim was to create a pattern collection of best practices in language learning in the context of

design education. A design pattern was approached as a structured way to describe good practices

within a specific domain of expertise. Design patterns describe a recurring problem, the context in

21

which it occurs, and a possible solution (in this case expressed as implications). Each pattern is also

specified by related patterns. Related patterns enable the creation of a network or ecosystem of

related practices and therefore help navigation from one pattern to another.

Deliverable 8.1 focused on the identification of benchmark patterns in the context of design

education in English.

Deliverables 8.2 and 8.3 aimed to introduce a new online technology (The Open Design Studio

or ODS) to the project partners as a way to further collect data for pattern construction. The objective

was that this technology would be used by partner institutions for collaborative tasks with non-English

speaking students.

Deliverables 8.4 and 8.6 aimed to analyse the above data and then use this analysis as the

basis for the construction of patterns.

Benchmarkdesignpatterns

Deliverable 8.1 focused on the identification of benchmark patterns in the context of design education

in English. The benchmark patterns were the result of outcomes from observations and analysis of

student activity and performance at the three distance learning compulsory design courses of the

BA/BSc in Design and Innovation at the Open University. Between them the three courses teach

around 2000 students each year, who are predominantly English speakers. The core objective was to

set a benchmark of good practice to guide successful language learning in the context of design

studio teaching. The benchmark patterns included here were produced in the early stages of the

ARCHI21 project to inform and assist the research.

Following are short summaries of the proposed 12 patterns characteristic of distance design

learning. Details, including implications for CLIL, can be found in the full WP8 report Patterns for the

use of CLIL in design and architectural teaching in online media.

22

Figure7Benchmarkpatterns

1. The slow road to illumination Definitions and concepts around design develop slowly through conversations with others.

2. Do as I do Students learn how to relate to one another and they are acculturated into an online community and learning environment through the example of the moderator or facilitator.

3. No teller without listener A storyteller needs listeners to legitimate the relevance of the story through their attention, non-verbal feedback or small agreements. Similarly in an online discussion, students that ‘listen’ need to legitimate the value of contributions to the community or group through some form of feedback (agreement, examples, or some form of contextualisation of the content). Positive feedback gives the person posting authority in the group and confidence to continue posting.

4. Touch points Students in distant design education are often working alone; they are geographically distributed, and have diverse cultural and educational backgrounds. One of the reoccurring challenges in this context is how to enable students to develop a ‘social self-awareness’: awareness of how others (students and tutors) perceive, react or share one’s own visions, actions and understanding. This pattern proposes a game where a distributed community of students creates a common environment or artefact.

5. Breathing In collaborative designing, efficient communication and ideation is achieved in a mix of small team work and large group meetings.

23

6. Wear your skills Your visual appearance reflects on your abilities.

7. Know me better

8. Lurking design crit Allow all students to ‘listen into’ design crits that were hold and recorded between one tutor and one student.

9. Learn to practice, practice to learn Develop theoretical and practical understanding in parallel. Set project work with clear stages that requires the application of theoretical knowledge to practical situations. Ask students to reflect on the ways in which they have married these two elements of their learning

10. Local community meeting Frequent local community meetings support students and facilitators in understanding online behaviour of remote teammates in international distance learning.

11. Annotated artifacts In large learning groups a large volume of visual material is accumulated quickly. With such a large amount of uploads, how do you facilitate that an upload receives comments?

12. Stories of a special teacher Aha experiences or strong learning experiences often arise by being close to charismatic and talented senior designers who are also good teachers by telling tales and stories about their practice and exposing students to real-world designs they have done.

ODSandpatternconstructionworkshops

Deliverables 8.2 and 8.3 aimed to introduce a new online technology (The Open Design Studio or

ODS) to the project partners as a way to further collect data for pattern construction. The objective

was that this technology would be used by partner institutions for collaborative tasks with non-English

speaking students. The OU produced two documents around ODS training. Training was delivered as

planned and the platform was used in WP4 with French students. However, due to unforeseen

technical issues with ODS, which was found late on in development, not to recognise Slovenian

characters, the platform was not able to be used in WP5 or WP6. As part of deliverable 8.3, the OU

team offered two recorded training sessions on pattern construction using the benchmark patterns for

guidance.

The core objective of these training sessions was that each project partner would contribute in

the construction of patterns. However, in discussion with partners it was realized that it was more

efficient and effective to conduct structured (but open-ended) interviews with each project partner to

develop patterns on their behalf. The interviews focused on the following items:

The context of work and the work undertaken

Conditions/constraints that effected the work undertaken

Problems/challenges for CLIL, use of technologies and institutional collaboration

Identified solutions and best practices

Open Design Studio

OpenDesignStudio (ODS) is a virtual design ePortfolio specifically developed for Open University

students. It has been developed alongside a new Level 1 Open University course called Design

24

Thinking – Creativity for the 21st Century. It is embedded within the teaching and learning and is

aimed to support both students and tutors to create a virtual community of learning. Design students

can upload visual images or their work in the form of photographs, sketches or videos and share

these with their peers. Students are encouraged to critically comment on each other’s work in order to

facilitate peer-to-peer learning. OpenDesignStudio enables distance design students to share their

design ideas within a design community. It encourages peer collaboration and critical review, similar

to a design atelier environment. A demonstration of Open Design Studio (ODS) can be found at

http://bit.ly/ZnkkYb.

1stworkshopondatagatheringandpatternconstruction

This ARCHI21 workshop in pattern mining was the first in a series of meetings leading to the

identification of patterns across all the project partners’ activities.

1. What is Data?

2. Patterns in data

3. Summarizing observations

4. In-depth analysis

5. From patterns in data to design patterns

6. Discussion if this approach is valuable for ARCHI partners What are the best ways of sharing case stories, in-depth analysis and design patterns among ARCHI partners and potentially with the wider world (dissemination)?

Wiki: http://crossculturalcollaboration.pbworks.com/ Cloudworks: http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2864 Moodle?

2ndworkshopondatagatheringandpatternconstruction

The purpose of the second ARCHI21 workshop was the clarification of the patterns approach and

overview of the process of pattern mining and other WP8 related work.

1. What are patterns and why do we want patterns?

2. How did we get to Benchmark Patterns?

3. Discussion of Benchmark Patterns

4. Observation to Analysis: Story example 1

5. Analysis to Articulation - In-depth analysis

6. Revising Benchmark Patterns (Implementation to Refinement)

7. Introduction and Training for ODS and Open Exchange

PatternsfortheuseofCLILindesignandarchitecturalteachinginonlinemedia

Deliverables 8.4 and 8.6 aimed to analyse the above data and then use this analysis as the basis for

the construction of patterns. The data from the interviews were coded by two members of the Open

University team into the following emerging themes:

25

the multidisciplinary nature of CLIL

the implementation of CLIL in design education

the choice, affordances and use of technology

language/design skills development

These themes were further subdivided into more specific problems/challenges and solutions that were

identified and supported by the interviewees’ comments and evidence. Using this analysis a number

of patterns were created as presented below. At a more general level, the patterns can be organized

into three broad categories (Figure 8):

Learning design: These patterns describe reiterating challenges and solutions in the context of designing learning environments for CLIL in design and architecture.

Pedagogy in action: These patterns describe reiterating challenges and solutions related to pedagogy and delivery of teaching materials that integrate language and design learning.

Institutional: These patterns describe reiterating challenges and solutions related to institutional needs and constraints.

Figure8ThreeclassesofpatternsfortheuseofCLILindesignandarchitecture

The patterns

Learning design

1. Prepare to progress Integration of language development with design learning requires specialist mentoring in preparation for design tasks in the target language.

2. Technology that fits It is important when designing online learning experiences to use the right technological interface for the learning situation.

3. Keep it personal Face to face contact is hard to match for the development of language skills, however, one to one contact in a digital medium can be effective if that communication is direct and focused.

26

4. Got it? Use it If time and effort is put into the creation of resources, thought should be given to using those resources in as many ways as possible to reinforce learning.

5. Cultural understanding The cultures of linguists, architects and educationalists are all different, consequently pedagogical approaches vary.

Pedagogy in action

6. Paint the picture Design based subjects are very visual, this offers opportunities for language learning as images can be used as reference and discussion points.

7. Like for like Communication between students and language specialists is clearer and easier if everyone has a shared knowledge of the subject.

8. Adapt to survive Students in different situations and places have different learning needs. Successful learning occurs when these needs are met. A flexible and adaptive approach to teaching is required to ensure that the needs of different student groups are met.

Institutional

9. Embed in the institution Cross national working demands cross national understanding and synchronisation in terms of time and technology.

10. Technology that works Online learning requires technical support both to set up and to run successfully.

LearningObjects(WP14)Coordinator: SO

In ARCHI21 Learning Objects (LOs) were created as direct outputs from teaching and learning

events/actions that took place through the various media of new technologies, specifically, Second

Life, Knovio, Vimeo, UStream, Open Design Studio, GoToMeeting, as part of the project work

packages. Learning Objects can be defined as self-contained small units of online learning material,

usually combining content with interactive tasks. These Learning Objects take the form of additional

interactive learning resources for students, which can be used asynchronously in a support or

bridging role. In other words, they can be used to link classroom teaching and immersive world

learning experience/ learning taking place through other new technologies.

The 19 LOs developed collaboratively for this project are learning resources for a specific CLIL

context, here mapping onto the taught areas of architecture and design programmes and additional

languages that were taught. All learning object outputs are now available as OER (open educational

resources) under an attribution/ non-commercial / no derivatives Creative Common license. CLIL

practitioners in architecture and design, and those working in other discipline areas, may view or use

the learning object outputs from the ARCHI21 project. They can be found (and linked to) on the

following websites:

http://www.archi21.eu

http://www.elanguages.ac.uk/archi21.php

27

They have also been uploaded to repositories of open content such as http://www.languagebox.ac.uk

for wider dissemination.

The process of collaborating at distance with Architecture and Design experts to produce

content for Learning Objects production was successful. Previous experience in cross-disciplinary

Learning Object collaboration by the lead WP14 team had helped evolve an approach to working

collaboratively across discipline in one institution, the challenge of working with other disciplines

based in widely dispersed institutions on this project added a further level of complexity to the

collaborations. A broad model for working collaboratively to produce content was implemented:

1. collection and storage of audio-visual output from various work package actions

2. identification of relevant and useful CLIL topics around which the LOs, as teaching and learning resources, could be built

3. identification of suitable content from work package actions matching these needs

4. collaborative planning of LO teaching and learning content around identified work package content ( a shareable planning template was especially developed for this purpose)

5. creation of a draft LO by the University of Southampton team, based on planning sheet, which was then shared with collaborating partner(s)

6. review of output by subject expert and implementation of any changes needed

7. piloting with students and European teachers external to the project

8. refreshment and translation as needed

Pilot Evaluation

A pilot study was conducted using a subset of LOs developed during the project and involving ten

Erasmus students from UL-FA, who were following a taught elective in ‘Space and Media’ for one

semester. The outcomes of the pilot were found to be satisfactory and only minor amendments were

applied to the LO template and approach to content development after review. Student qualitative

feedback was very positive and an EU teacher, external to the project, who responded to a request to

evaluate through a dissemination event, also evaluated the LOs positively.

ActionLearningStage1(WP4)

OpenUniversityteachingexercise(WP4)

Coordinator: OU

The Open University’s ARCHI21 WP4 study took place in April 2011. Students taking modules in the

Design and Innovation BSc award were invited to participate in a series of sessions on the subject of

design briefs. Seventeen students with a mix of linguistic and professional backgrounds volunteered

to take part, half of whom were 'English as an additional language' (from here EAL) speakers.

Five sessions were conducted in Second Life (SL) and a sixth session, partially conducted

using the audio/video conferencing tool FlashMeeting (FM). Work in each session was planned and

facilitated by four Design lecturers. An English language specialist took part in all sessions using

observation and feed-back on language at the end of each session to advance students'

28

understanding. In addition technical support was provided by a SL expert who was present in all

sessions. None of the student participants had had previous experience of SL or FM. The facilitators

were advanced novices in SL and experienced in FM.

The main aim of the study was to identify potential approaches to CLIL in design learning at a

distance for higher education and to consider how local opportunities (at the OU) could be further

developed in collaborative actions across the ARCHI partner institutions. The effectiveness of the

design and language teaching sessions was gauged using participant observation by the researcher-

teachers and review of recorded sessions as well as in-world discussions with the students about the

progress they made.

From the researchers' point of view the focus of the study was the acquisition of design specific

language and development of skills required for the generation and interpretation of design briefs

seen as critical to an understanding of designing and the design process.

The approach taken in this pilot study was to convene a series of training sessions focussing

on the development of language and communicative skills associated with understanding, generating

and presenting a design brief and collaboratively implementing this brief in SL. The subject of design

briefs was chosen as it is critical to an understanding of design process and practice. Second Life was

chosen as a platform in order to provide students with a shared space in which they can communicate

through audio, text and through the building of physical objects.

From a methodological perspective this allowed the team to create a sense of being present in

a design studio–replicating some important aspects of learning in traditional design education, where

students learn in context and through interaction with peers and tutors.

The sessions, listed below, were designed from a linguistic viewpoint, to gradually build up

knowledge and understanding of common design terms used in design briefs and specifications.

1. Introduction Language: Social language

2. Retro-writing a design brief Language: Exploratory language, expressing possibilities, formulating hypotheses

3. Collaborative building of an object based on a given design brief Language: Negotiation, Suggestion, Agenda and Time Management, Social, Collaboration and Consensus Finding

4. Creating a new design brief Language: Unpacking the use of terms, written language, academic language

5. Interpreting a design brief Language: Evaluation, Communication, Negotiation of meaning, Building and making

6. Presenting a design proposal Language: Presentation, Comparison, Developing Arguments

Lessons learned

A lesson learned is that induction to designing in Second Life needs additional training and support in

creating and editing objects not just individually but as a team. This particular need for team designing

is surprising because in real-world design education, students often do not dare to modify someone

else’s designs. There might be discussions around possible modifications of prototypes, but the

owner of the object carries out the actual modification or someone else creates a new prototype.

29

While in-world the idea of editing and modifying someone else’s design seems inviting and even

desirable it is not very easily managed technically by novices to the technology.

While some research has shown that language learning is particularly well supported by virtual

environments that simulate a particular social or cultural context, such as learning Chinese trough

ordering Chinese dishes in an in world Chinese restaurant (Henderson et al 2009), this experiment

showed that for design and language learning, virtual objects and environments don’t have to be

particularly realistic or refined. In a traditional Design Atelier used for learning design, the social and

cultural context is emergent. The space is left deliberately blank so that students can construct their

own space. Hence, the provided space in SL for this study was simple, but students created their own

objects. These objects contributed to creating a dynamic Atelier space in world. In addition, we

believe that these rough and unready designed objects provided a greater flexibility and variety in

natural language use and ways to communicate ideas, which might be particularly appropriate for

CLIL in design and architecture learning.

An interesting lesson was around providing critical feedback through parallel channels. While

someone forms an argument using voice, chat is used to provide some contra argument. This might

be due to the British culture of giving indirect critique. This practice seemed to have no negative

impact on the proceedings of collaboration. On the contrary, the function of multi-channel

communication could be further adopted to develop specific CLIL approaches in SL.

Design content and language learning were not easy to match in status and perceived

importance. Since the sessions were run by four content and only supported by one language

mediator, the focus was naturally on design content with an integration of language learning. The

format of reactive language support was the only viable format. The previously envisioned tighter

integration of the language mediator in the running design discussion was realistically not possible

because it would have provided gaps in the flow of thought and topic of discussion. However, this

could be positively addressed with a closer integration of language mediators in the preparation of

sessions and leaving time for reviewing language use during sessions.

Nevertheless, students benefited from the reactive language support given at the end of

sessions and in email summaries by the mediator after each session. Moreover, this was perceived

as an integral part of the design learning process. We believe that this is a very positive sign for how

CLIL can be integrated in design and higher education. For example, in the first session, an EAL

speaker said that she only didn’t understand one word, which was then clarified by the mediator. The

student was very grateful. Generally, it seemed that spontaneous explanations and clarifications of

design concepts during discussions (done by students or content teachers themselves) were very

also effective. However, this spontaneous approach to CLIL could be improved if the mediator had the

same understanding of concepts to be able to give more design specific and technical language

feedback during the sessions. This proactive approach would probably require much more

preparation, as design sessions often involve a high amount of tacit understanding that cannot be

quickly acquired or be shared up front. But given the longer preparation time for WP5, we are positive

that we can integrate proactive, spontaneous and reactive CLIL approaches in further actions.

30

To conclude, the OU WP4 experiment was a success in terms of students’ motivation,

engagement and participation.

The approach to language development was largely reactive, and the indications are that better

CLIL integration may be achieved using a longer preparatory period and more pro-active language

development. The language mediator produced some English language skills documents that were

available to all partners.

The biggest challenge to efficient collaboration and language learning in design was

technology. Using an unfamiliar interface which demanded the development of new skills to achieve

discipline based goals led students’ attention on the tangible rather than linguistic goals of the project.

A longer induction session with extended building skills and group-based building skills should be

planned in future. This would also allow addressing potential technical difficulties on individual basis

more effectively.

It was difficult to do teaching and being an observant researcher plus managing technical

issues and recording sessions at the same time. In a collaborative action with other partners, we think

that individual partners should take on very specific roles, based on their availability, knowledge and

skills, so that every aspect of this complex virtual learning and research environment can be handled

more efficiently.

The learning design of sessions should be done in close collaboration with mediators to

guarantee an equal focus and integration of content and language skill development and facilitate

proactive, spontaneous and reactive CLIL approaches.

The OU team published a paper on fragility in distance design learning (Garner et al. 2011) and

a ReLIVE paper reporting on the learning design of the experiment (Holden et al. 2011).

CritIMPACT(WP4)

Coordinator: ENSAPM

This activity was offered as part of a compulsory Language and Communications class. Its objective

was to raise student awareness to the affordances of a 3D immersive environment such as Second

Life as both an experimental and real world design space, using English as the working language.

Five in-world sessions, consisting of induction, basic building and operational skills and four virtual

project visits were organized to raise awareness to virtuality and virtual spaces in architecture and

design in 3D immersive environments. The activity was run by the class tutor (language coach) and

an external tutor (content coach, US-based architect). A variety of software was used, including

Second Life, Open Design Studio (http://bit.ly/ZnkkYb), Wiggio, Skype, Flickr and Twitter.

Feedback from students suggests that the course could be repeated with appropriate

modifications:

• Time and Integration into Content Curriculum: Feedback indicates that more time should be

allocated in general, allowing for greater creativity in ‘doing’ (participative design/building),

discussion/critique in face-to-face setting and in online collaboration with students from other

institutions. This course approach could be partially integrated into project work or other

content courses.

31

• Learning Space: It must be emphasized that SL or any similar synthetic world is not a

replacement but a potential additional tool of exploration in a student’s toolkit.

• Language mediated Learning Spaces : Collaborating, sharing and learning together in and

through language in the technology mediated settings were positive highlights in the student

feedback:

• Finding the balance: However, some students, despite a positive experience, may not want to

use SL. Due to the disciplinary culture and the students’ daily learning/teaching routine and

practice, a balance has to be found for ARCHI21 activities. In order to foster active

engagement in future activities in blended settings, the integration of additional technology in

face-to-face learning settings, plus distant technology mediated settings, must be relevant to

the students’ content studies and work flow.

• In-house Technology: Frustration and time loss experienced in the physical setting demands

guaranteed availability of appropriate settings in the institution for any similar ARCHI21 action

to be implemented in the future. This frustration with the physical setting and technology was

also reflected in student feedback.

A published paper reporting on this activity is Hunter et al. (2011).

SLBuildingandLightingclasses(WP4&WP5)

Coordinator: AAU

As a means to introduce ARCHI21 project teachers and students to the (architectural) building

capabilities of the project’s Second Life immersive 3D environment, AAU ran several classes in 2011.

These were generally preceded by SO’s one hour ARCHI21 Second Life induction class. The AAU

classes included:

• a ten hour class on building (modelling) in SL for ARCHI21 project teachers of architecture

and design;

• a four hour class on building and presentation skills in SL for students from Slovenia

participating in the ‘Space and Media’ design class (the latter with face to face instruction);

• a two hour class on lighting techniques in SL, in conjunction with the ‘Lighting in Design’

class, integrated with the Slovenian design studio.

The classes used a Cybergogy approach to teaching in virtual worlds (Scopes 2009), reported in

WP9. This required developing detailed lesson plans that addressed the Learning Domains and

Archetypes in the Cybergogy model.

Language acquisition was not a major aspect of these classes (as was the case in other project

activities), but it was supported by the provision of language and technical mediators. The English

language skills of all participants were of a high enough level that there did not appear to be any

comprehension problems. However, there were issues that arose, e.g. users’ software with different

language interfaces. This leads one to consider the need to map technical terms between languages

in multi-lingual environments.

32

As the technology can be tricky to learn and occasionally unreliable, we adopted a ‘belt and

braces’ approach to dissemination and communication, i.e. multiple ways of viewing the lecture slides

and being present in the class (e.g. in-world, web based screen sharing, web streaming and

whiteboard sharing). Several communication channels were available, including SL voice and text

chat, with Skype as a voice fallback.

Observations and lessons learned

In early class sessions the mediators tended to take an observer’s role, for use in analysis of the

project activities. During the course of the sessions, mediators began to take on a more active role

providing technical assistance, but the language aspect was addressed only through observation (as

there appeared less need for active language mediation). Consequently, one should consider how

language mediators might perform an active, facilitating role in alignment with the Cybergogy

framework for such project activities.

Some class sessions were very busy, with many participants in different roles: instructor,

students, mediators and observers. While an effort was made to make these roles easily

distinguishable (e.g. titles above an avatar’s head, special headgear), in one session it was difficult to

identify avatars in a crowded virtual space that lacked any structure to avatars’ locations. One

unresolved question is whether this had a detrimental effect on knowledge transfer and learning. This

is an example where real world situations transposed into a 3D virtual world might utilise solutions

analogous to those in the physical world (e.g. breakout sessions, which were used on one occasion).

Body language is often a common way to obtain feedback from students, e.g. are they paying

attention? In a virtual world this is not possible; one must often rely on more direct means. If there is

not an ongoing dialogue between instructor and student, it is necessary to periodically stop and

conduct an evaluation addressing each individual, which could be as simple as asking if there are any

questions.

Although a stated prerequisite for the classes was some basic knowledge of SL (a few hours

acclimatisation and exploration), this was not the case for many of the participants (both learners and

mediators). As a result there were very mixed cohorts of learners and mediators, with many technical

problems encountered by those with less SL experience. This contributed to delays in the class

sessions: for example, presentations were often halted while learners’ technical problems were being

addressed, occasionally resulting in the discarding of part of the lesson plan.

We learned which technologies work well and which don’t (e.g. through steep learning curves,

instability, high resource requirements, or inadequate outcomes). The ‘belt and braces’ approach to

teaching with technology served us well, with several occasions where participants needed to switch

tools (e.g. voice to text chat, use of screen sharing for better learner comprehension, viewing of

external web pages). A switch was often the result of a need to address either a technical problem or

learner comprehension. This indicates that a broad, flexible approach is important, and that the

instructor should be able to switch between multiple tools with ease.

The learning curve for SL and similar 3D virtual worlds tends to be considerably higher than a

novice typically anticipates. We believe the amount of time required for both induction and building

33

classes needs to be greater than that allocated for our activities; this includes time for students to

explore independently, thus giving participants an adequate skill foundation to participate in the

building classes and experience the social and cultural diversity of virtual worlds. The limited amount

of contact time for the classes and many participants’ lack of prior experience in-world were factors

that led to insufficient accomplishment of some of the desired learning outcomes. The result was that

the students’ subsequent use of SL for their design projects was not as extensive as anticipated. The

use of the 3D virtual world environment should be tightly integrated into the curriculum (with tangible

support and participation of the design teachers) and not considered as an optional ‘add-on’.

The use of detailed lesson plans mapping Learning Archetypes & Learning Domains to the

learning activities is paramount to the adoption of this model and should be prioritised when

developing a curriculum. Given the likelihood of technical mishaps and the diversity of the learners’

initial skill levels, these lesson plans should be highly flexible and adaptable, particularly with regard

to activity timing.

These classes described here are reported on in Chase & Scopes (2012).

UL‐FAclasses:‘SpaceandMedia’&‘Conceptsofstructures’(WP4)

Coordinator: UL-FA

These two courses are 3ECTS Masters level electives. The project related objective for the courses

was the introduction of interdisciplinary communication and CLIL into architectural and engineering

education. Students were primarily Erasmus, with a cohort of Slovene Engineering students in the

Constructional Concepts class. Target languages were Slovene (for the Erasmus students) and

English. Due to curriculum and scheduling limitations, the courses relied on traditional CAD and Web

2.0 technology, rather than the more resource intensive Second Life.

Both 2l English and 2l Slovene were introduced at the ‘adjunct CLIL’ level. Language teachers

were involved before the study presentation phase, while the content teacher’s languages were: l1 –

Slovene and l2 English. The learners were encouraged to use both English and Slovene during the

case-study presentation phase.

Learners, their response and outcomes of the events

• In the process of f2f interaction, visual language is the most important integrator of all the

'languages' employed; it enables 'going beyond' the difficulties deriving from the diversity of

the literacy levels in relation to English and Slovene languages.

• During the introduction of Slovene as the second 2l a very high level of pressure on both staff

and students was felt during the implementation phase, though the actions were planned in

advance - especially in the cases of low level first 2l-English.

• Learning Slovene is more a chance than and actual need of students, as long as it is fun. Fun

stops when the real need to express themselves appear…, when they need to communicate

their ideas about 'their' architecture. The aim to improve the most basic literacy in Slovene is

questionable when it breaks the content related communication, which needs higher levels of

communication skills. The question about how to introduce additional study aims to improve

34

student's technical skills aimed to dwell in-worlds is still open. The main aim of the course to

achieve a higher level of knowledge and understanding of the architectural topic concerned

should still remain the main focus of the course and it cannot be fully replaced by the focus to

communication and technical skills.

Some challenges and lessons learned

Learning points arising from the work package, around technology, pedagogy, social and personal engagement including issues that need to be considered or dealt with for successful use of the virtual worlds for CLIL

The motivation for content based language learning is quite high but the substantial progress in

language learning terms is not to be expected – learning of terms and some phrases and their use in

SI-ENG mix is viable, syntax and sentences when presenting or defending the architectural project

was beyond the timeframe of the course, motivation of students and the standards required to pass

the subject. We also consider it irrational (in terms of time, effort, energy and motivation needed) to

persevere with the consistent use of Slovene language in terms of the grammar, language syntax and

use of the sentence sequences, while the main contribution of Slovenian language to convey the

architectural ideas can be reached through the use of separate words and phrases as an assistance

to find most subtle meanings and precise connotations of the communicated contents.

The language part has been introduced late in the course – presentations only. With the

substantial interest of students for CLIL and possibilities to incorporate language and SL from the

start, we are optimistically looking towards more integration between language and contents, also at

initial presentations of the topics and themes by the teachers, later in collaborative processes and

when presenting final results synchronously to other participants and asynchronously on the

billboards in SL.

Moreover, the students are reluctant to use tools that are seen as too much of a compromise

between functionalities needed for architectural design and other features, they hold for additional but

not essential (communication). The SL will be used by student only if it will provide them with

something useful to their task or integrate many otherwise scattered tools ‘under the roof’ of one

interface. And even in that case the SL will be used only if the course will clearly demand that from

students from the start.

Using the SL (some of FA archi21 team teachers) for extended period of time, going through

the induction courses, listening to in-world lectures helps immerse the participant into the pervasive

environment, gradually accepting it as an environment and not merely a ‘’fascination’ or a ‘thing’ that

is in the way. While accepting the environment and its limitations helps with ‘assimilation’, it also

presents a danger for the user to start thinking within the technological affordances without critical

distance and in terms of SL framework only.

• Problem of interest in learning Slovene language (such interest might be for instance present

among Slovenian 2nd generation emigrants)

• Motivation to use selected phrases and words from Slovene in order to improve professional

communication

35

• Problem of course development and its realistic setup in eventual mutual presence of teachers of

architecture, structure and language

• Problem of the diversity of working dynamics of staff and students involved: evening hours are

problematic for staff and students from Ljubljana

• Use of SL from the start has not been possible due to the late start of the project and already

running courses nor has it been essential as the action has been localized and sessions f2f � for

the WP5 with the collaboration of partners envisioned the SL environment will be much more

useful - the challenges ahead are: persuading and motivating students to use SL environment for

communication and design both hard to sell because students are used to other communication

applications they prefer (i.e. Skype) and limitations of SL design tools features, while the

architectural students are used to advanced 3D design applications (especially problematic are:

no support for importation of 3D models, at least not easy and incorporated, no support for free

texture import, awkward 3D building tools, etc.)

• The main hindrance of designing and modeling 3D objects in SL appears to be the very different

purpose and finial use of those objects comparing to conventional designing programs used in

architecture. While the SL designing practice tend to lower the level of detail used in forms and

textures to the extent that is adequate to the visual perception of the SL users (due to the higher

SL efficiency - “Why bother to compute all the details of objects when they cannot be visible

anyway?”), the conventional design tools aim at providing the designer with the ability to

establish highly detailed 2d and 3d models which are employed and needed in architectural

professional work. The difference in designing principles (stemming from the purpose of 3D

designing and modeling) between SL and conventional architectural practice appears to

dissuade the architecturally profiled students from using SL as a direct tool for 3D modeling,

while the format and attributes of the objects do not enable quick and simple additional

corrections, exportation to other designing programs or use of objects for other purposes. Such

weakness in terms of architectural practice can represent the duplication of work, time, energy

etc., thus a different stimulation/motivation for students is to be considered in advance.

• Effortless combination of language and architecture learning in immersive worlds – combining

online sessions, f2f meetings, dislocated students, language facilitators and design teachers will

present a challenge in the following WP

• Need to provide a critical mass of students to form groups and offer real-time and asynchronous

tutoring

• Students are reluctant to use tools (e.g. SL) that are seen as too much of a compromise between

functionalities needed for architectural design and other features they see as additional but not

essential (communication).

36

ActionLearningStage2Transnational(WP5)

LJ‐FAclasses‘SpaceandMedia’and’Lightingindesign’(WP5)

Coordinator: UL-FA

These two courses are Masters level electives (an earlier session of ‘Space and Media’ was also a

subject of WP4) The project related objective for the courses was the introduction of interdisciplinary

communication and CLIL into architectural and engineering education. Student cohorts were a

mixture of Slovene and Erasmus students. Target languages were Slovene and English. The Space

and Media class involved the redesign of Ljubljana’s Republic Square; the Lighting in Design class

was integrated in that the lighting project was also for Republic Square.

Interested students in both classes were given the opportunity to develop their projects in

Second Life, with induction and building classes offered by SO and AAU (see the report sections on

Induction and SL Building classes). The Second Life environment was used for building a site model,

experiments by some of the lighting students, and presentations to ARCHI21 teachers and students in

other institutions (in particular, ENSAPM). GoToMeeting videoconferencing was also used for project

presentations to the ARCHI21 cohort.

Additional lessons learned

For the purposes of presentations and recording of sessions GotoMeeting proved to be effective and

time efficient. However trying to present 3D model in an immersive environment is not an option in the

mentioned software.

The SL experience, although not the most effective tool to learn and design architecture, has

shown itself as useful to introduce common goal of building 3D model of the site that put the

segmented building experiences in building class to integrated use. The students also learned to use

SL as the presentation, gathering and communication platform.

The main hindrance of designing and modeling 3D objects in SL still appears to be the very

different purpose and final use of those objects comparing to conventional designing programs used

in architecture. While the SL designing practice tend to lower the level of detail used in forms and

textures to the extent that is adequate to the visual perception of the SL users (due to the higher SL

efficiency - “Why bother to compute all the details of objects when they cannot be visible anyway?”),

the conventional design tools aim at providing the designer with the ability to establish highly detailed

2d and 3d models which are employed and needed in architectural professional work. The difference

in designing principles (stemming from the purpose of 3D designing and modeling) between SL and

conventional architectural practice appears to dissuade the architecturally profiled students from using

SL as a direct tool for 3D modeling, while the format and attributes of the objects do not enable quick

and simple additional corrections, exportation to other designing programs or use of objects for other

purposes. Such weakness in terms of architectural practice can represent the duplication of work,

time, energy etc., thus a different stimulation/motivation for students is to be considered in advance.

Every object built in SL can be assigned a function of a luminary which is good, taking into

account the fact that LED light sources are at the moment among the most promising light sources

37

because of their small dimensions too. They can be attached almost everywhere. Other interested

people can observe the design process in SL in real-time (as avatars). However, some upgrade

regarding lighting possibilities in SL is needed. Various electrical light sources and reflectance from

materials, more accurate shadows, sunlight and nocturnal settings of the ambience are some of the

issues that have to be addressed in future – if we want to use SL as a learning environment with all its

advantages (and disadvantages).

Cutting-edge computer configuration and internet connection for relatively smooth motion in the

SL is needed. High-quality graphic card for displaying advanced graphic is needed if one wants to

experiment with other than just very basic ambient lighting.

A set of hardware standards (and other standards: linguistic, behavioural etc.) will be necessary

if we want that SL will become a “remote” global classroom where traditional ways of teaching in

specially designed and built (and more and more “expensive”) educational buildings will give way to

more advanced techniques, with constant software updates and more and more new more or less

necessary gadgets of all kinds.

ENSAPMurbandesignstudio(WP5)

Coordinator: ENSAPM

As part of an urban design studio, 3rd year ENSAPM students were given the opportunity to present

their work remotely to teachers and students at other ARCHI21 institutions (in particular, UL-FA).

Students were to present their approach to the problem addressed in the design studio course.

ENSAPM students were to present their ongoing work in different media for the remote students and

content teachers. The intention was to share the learning process, cultural aspects, with distant

students and content teachers though the language of English, being the common language.

ENSAPM content teachers were to support and facilitate the learning process. The language teacher

offered support through the Language and Communication Skills course, to scaffold language

learning in pre-, during and post presentation events. Cohort partners were to evaluate and critique

the presentations.

The web presentation tool Knovio was used to prepare students for their presentations. This

type of tool enables students to prepare their presentation in their own time, in their own environment

(e.g. school, home), to pause, rewind, correct, and improve. The essential advantage of a tool like

Knovio placed the learning and discussion process in the hands of the learner rather than the teacher.

Cohort partners and students were invited to view the video recordings and comment. This exchange

was directed to the student's email and not the teachers or the institution. Therefore, the motivation

lay on the student to continue or ignore the interaction. For those students who completed this task,

the results were very interesting and should be further developed.

Due to coordination problems, content teachers were not as active as they needed to be during

this activity, e.g. in terms of providing architectural feedback. This resulted in the language teacher

taking on multiple roles. The lack of feedback was also felt by the students.

The lesson from this activity is that, in a CLIL approach, language and content teachers should

have equal status, and neither should bear the burden of CLIL. Both should contribute to the learning

38

process in order for students to perceive and give validity to the instruction. All teachers should be

motivated by the principles of a CLIL approach for it to be beneficial to student learning and

professional development.

ActionLearningStage3:Pilot(WP6)

LJ‐FAworkshop‘LightingGuerrilla’(WP6)

Coordinator: LJ-FA

The workshop Lighting Guerrilla was part of the project Lighting Guerrilla (light objects and installation

in public and gallery space, (interactive) projections, film, dance, actions, workshops), which is turning

on the lights in different public spaces (parks, streets, galleries, cultural centers). The topic for this

workshop was Movement: the artists explored the interaction between movement and light in relation

to space and also to the spectator as a co-creator. Students, with the help of their mentors, had to

conceive and assemble a light installation on one of the bridges in Ljubljana, on the wooden bridge

between Three bridges and Shoemakers bridge.

The students were from University of Ljubljana, FA - originally 14 from Slovenia. In the course

all were the non-native English participants. The need to improve English proficiency of all staff and

students, as the main communication language, though highly supported by visual communication, is

obvious. CLIL was used in the presentations, where students used Slovene, English and French

words. Students used the Slovene and English words at the same time to emphasize specific things.

Our mixed group of students consisted of five Slovene-speaking students. The constant

communication between them was in Slovene. They prepared the presentations in Slovene and

English, and the communication between the students and foreign invited critics was in English, and

with some Slovene words they emphasize specific things.

The main communication language between students and teachers on the home institution in

Ljubljana was Slovene; the main communication language at the presentations was English. Students

and teachers both had some benefit of that. In the intermediate stage of the workshop they were

encouraged to also use some French expressions, at least for most frequently used English words.

The final presentation that has been conducted in GoToMeeting they taught each other, with the help

of language mediators, some basic expressions from architecture and lighting terminology in both,

English and French.

There were two intermediate presentations/ crit-sessions:

• the students presented the preliminary design proposal, invited critics provided comments; it

was f2f at the Faculty of Architecture in Ljubljana for Slovene students and professors, and in

GoToMeeting for invited ARCHI21 critics.

• detailed design proposal – the invited critics evaluated all three proposals and chose one,

which was built in real-life (other two proposals were built in virtual life – the students

prepared walk-through the 3D model); it was f2f at the Faculty of Architecture in Ljubljana for

Slovene students and professors in GoToMeeting for invited ARCHI21 critics.

39

The results of the project were the final ppt/pdf presentations and videos given by the students, which

was prepared in Slovene, French and English. Implementation of the CLIL approach was attempted at

different stages of the course. One group built their proposal in real life, other two groups built 3D

model.

Different technologies were used throughout the workshop for virtual communication and

collaboration:

• Platform for exchanging the data for students and teachers (presentations, comments, etc.):

http://ucilnica1112.fgg.uni-lj.si/

• Common communication tools: e-mail, Skype…

• Collaboration platform for presentations: Go-to-meeting (http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/) –

web conferencing tool, for online meetings, where you can share any application on your

computer in real time.

The course facilitated social interaction between students of architecture, teachers and staff from

different institutes. Students presented their work to the invited critics from foreign institutes, and

exchange their cultural backgrounds. They had also individual meetings with language mediators from

their home institution and Southampton (language focus), and individual meetings with Slovene

content teachers (content focus).

Additional challenges and lessons learned

Learning English is the challenge for Slovene students, they have the high motivation to learn it. The

main aim of the course to achieve a higher level of knowledge and understanding of the architectural

topic concerned should still remain the main focus of the course and it cannot be fully replaced by the

focus to linguistically, communication and technical skills.

Learning French is more an opportunity than an actual need of students. The students did not

really find the reason to use French expressions. Thus, there was a problem generating interest in

learning the French language. and a lack of motivation to use selected phrases and words from

French in order to improve professional communication.

ENSAPMVIFclass&ARCHIChat(WP6)

Coordinator: ENSAPM

ENSAPM (with support by AAU) initiated two guest presentations in Second Life, entitled ARCHI

Chat, open to the public: Jon Brouchoud (archvirtual.com, a project Associate Partner), ‘3D Immersive

technologies in Architectural Practice and Collaboration’ and Jacques Macaire, Humanbe, ‘Fragility:

Withstanding Hurricanes and Tsunamis’. Here the focus was on use of the 3D virtual environment for

design, presentation, and building community. Chat was logged and a recording made of the first

presentation. Visitors included educators and design professionals, with lively discussions.

The ENSAPM course ‘Virtuality, Immersion, Fragility’ (VIF) used material from the ARCHI

Chats and a live session with Jacques Macaire, with a subsequent module and online session

‘Fragility of Design Grammars and Styles’, run by AAU using Adobe Connect, that brought together

themes of language, design and fragility.

40

The VIF course was designed to factor in learning experiences and lessons learnt from

ARCHI21 partners, reports, instructor and student feedback and questionnaires from WP4 and WP5.

The pilot therefore built upon previous WPs, with selected activities from previous WPs and the

integration of new activities and external content experts to further develop a sequenced theme based

CLIL approach. The overall aim was to enhance perception and understanding of fragility, focusing on

the conceptualisation of space within sustainable development with the sub themes of Virtuality,

Immersion, Fragility in architecture and design. Specific content focus - seismic design. One concept

behind the VIF course is that a variety of instructional modalities would be available for each student

to evaluate which one works best for them in a CLIL approach.

This was a blended learning course, mixed modality, designed in two formats, face-to-face and

distance. Conceptually related content is divided into subtopics on the lesson level. Dividing the

content into manageable chunks enables this course to be used as a continuous course of sequenced

content and activities or as isolated topics and facilitates processing and review. Essential core

academic and topic related vocabulary was pre-taught through elicitation and presentation for

students to understand the key points in the multi-modal sessions. To activate language and high

order critical thinking, the course design was based on preparatory readings and discussions to raise

awareness of the lexical terms 'Virtuality, Immersion, Fragility' in architecture and design. Directed

reading, information search, written and oral language production in collaborative discovery and

meaning making in both the traditional face-to-face classroom and the private group collaborative

virtual learning space (PVLE -wiggio) for information exchange, assignments, discussions, visual

representations.

One teaching session ‘Fragility of Design Grammars and Styles’ was taught remotely from

AAU, using Adobe Connect conferencing software. ENSAPM students had previously been prepared

by the ENSAPM language teacher with background reading and an exercise to present in this class

session. The Adobe Connect real-time 'whole screen' group text/visual exploration proved to be very

beneficial for all students, not just for those who have a weaker level of English but more especially,

those who were having difficulty to grasp the concepts being covered.

During the event, the content teacher was facilitated by the language teacher when needed.

Students accessed the Adobe web conferencing depending upon their personal preference: central

computer, large screen viewing, personal laptop, class computer desktops. A further recording was

made in the room using a video camera. Photos were also taken and these two examples illustrate

the multimodality of learning spaces used quite well. Students were requested to orally present their

assignment for discussion with the content teacher. Further content presented by the content teacher.

As the session progressed, students slowly began to use the text chat spontaneously. There was a

very slight lag which did not deter the students' interactions with the distant content teacher.

Challenges and lessons learned

The VIF pilot was a successful experiment in many ways. Despite an intense programme with

multimodal delivery, presence and participation was high throughout. However:

41

• Time constraints: consider providing more weekly sessions to enable further group reflection

after certain sessions.

• Technological issues experienced by some students related to the sessions in Second Life

only. Recording of one in-world conference was not possible and live streaming did not work.

This is the ongoing 'burden' of data capture in Second Life both in time, disruption and

resources.

Conclusions

• For CLIL to be effective, internal support from the institution, administration, departments,

teachers and IT, and external support from project partners, is absolutely needed.

• Time must be allocated for the preparation, delivery and analysis of actions.

• Based on previous WPs, CLIL and the integration of new technologies can only be effective

and beneficial if given a 'design studio' status within the curriculum, for both content teachers

and students.

• Chunking CLIL material and delivery can be an effective means of integrating this dual focus

within other subject disciplines.

• Cross-disciplinary assessment of CLIL actions and student evaluation must be co-developed

for content and language by the content and language teachers.

• Based on WP4 CritIMPACT and WP6 VIF, overall students welcome the intervention of

external content experts in a CLIL approach.

• Further experimentation should become part of the normal curriculum rather than a 'one-off'.

• CLIL cannot be implemented on a long-term basis by the individual teacher or volunteer. It is

too demanding in time and resources.

• Different approaches to CILIL integration in WP6 have beneficial implicit effects on other

curricula programmes.

Onlineconference(WP1)Coordinator: ENSAPM

As a final action on the project, an online conference attended by members of the consortium was

organized in January 2013 by ENSAPM on the theme “Multilingual approaches as a means of

enhancing the understanding of urban territories”:

With Erasmus student and teacher mobility programs have come new problems and corresponding

potentials for teaching in Architecture schools. This conference questions the ways in which the bi- or

multi-lingual exchanges that have become common in all subject areas—including design studios—

might be considered an opportunity for enriching possibilities for design practices, in schools but also

outside of them. It will ask:

How can a dialogue be constructed around the acts of designating, naming and describing

urban conditions in different territories and in different languages?

How can language learning be merged with the teaching of core subjects in architecture?

42

More broadly and theoretically, how might we apprehend the modalities through which words

and images interact in architectural practices today, in particular those that concern urban

territories?

Presentations in English and French included:

“Territories: a glossary in the ARCHI21 project’s dynamics” Sylvie Escande, ENSAPM

“The Master’s research seminar as a micropolitical and potentially multilingual environment

[Foreign languages and writing as a means of extending and enriching a global urban atlas

project]” Jean Attali, ENSAPM

“Territories: An Image and Word Glossary. A self-critical approach to the objectives and

method of a teaching experiment” Steven Melemis, ENSAPM

“Case studies. Limits of the vocabulary-oriented approaches in the CLIL context” Jean-Yves

Gillon, CIEP.

“The impact of Erasmus mobility on personal identity building, and linguistic and intercultural

competence” Annick Bonnet, CIEP

CLILimplementation:Conclusionsandoutlook

Author: CIEP

Institutions of higher education in architecture are a fertile ground for developing a model of CLIL, still

with little presence in the European university landscape. By integrating existing linguistic disciplinary

practices, there is a way for these institutions to provide added value to their curricula and innovate

gradually while providing an interesting and strategic innovation to strengthen their own outlook to the

world and attractiveness, in a context of increasing competition.

The implementation of teaching of architecture in a foreign language is an ambitious project, a

challenge requiring educational teams that are motivated, caring and specially trained. Consultation

and cooperation between institutions, leaders and teachers are seen as essential conditions for the

success of the enterprise. CLIL is a new approach must be further promoted. It seems particularly

necessary that policy-makers need to be more involved before considering implementation in the field

with teachers and students. Institutional support is indeed desirable to ensure the success of the

project: the establishment of bilingual incentives to follow a global strategy of decision making to meet

the needs of human resources, to adapt curricula and programs, or to encourage the establishment of

European and international schools. These include strengthening the coherence of planning teaching:

registration in curricula, course continuity (connection between secondary and higher education, but

also between the higher and vocational) etc.

43

References

Chase S, 2013, Tools and guidelines for architectural and language communication teaching and

learning within immersive online environments, ARCHI21 project report.

Chase S, Scopes L, 2012, "Cybergogy as a framework for teaching design students in virtual worlds",

in Digital Physicality - Vol. 1, Proceedings of the 30th eCAADe Conference Eds H Achten, J Pavlíček,

J Hulín, D Matějovská (eCAADe & Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Architecture,

Czech Republic, Prague) pp 125-133

Coyle D, Hood H, Marsh D, 2010 CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning (Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge UK)

Garner S, Schadewitz N, Holden G, Zamenopoulos T, Alexiou K, 2011 “Supporting Fragility in

Distance Design Education” in Respecting Fragile Places, Proceedings of the 29th Conference on

Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe Eds T Zupancic, M Juvancic, S

Verovsek, A Jutraz (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture, Ljubljana, Slovenia) pp 663-672

Holden G, Schadewitz N, Alexiou K, Zamenopoulos T, Garner S, 2011, “Learning the Language of

Design in Second Life” in ReLIVE Conference Proceedings, Milton Keynes.

Hunter M, Chase S, Kligerman B, Zupancic T, 2011, "ARCHI21: Architectural and Design based

Education and Practice through Content & Language Integrated Learning using Immersive Virtual

Environments for 21st Century Skills", in Respecting Fragile Places, Proceedings of the 29th

Conference on Education in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe Eds T Zupancic, M

Juvancic, S Verovsek, A Jutraz (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture, Ljubljana, Slovenia)

pp 725-733

Scopes LJ 2009, Learning Archetypes as tools of Cybergogy for a 3D educational landscape: a

structure for e-teaching in Second Life, MSc dissertation, University of Southampton, School of

Education, UK, http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/66169

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial- No Derivative Works 3.0 License