1
2
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 (ENSA-PM, France) ;
- Centre international d’études pédagogiques (CIEP, France) ;
- The Open University (OP, United Kingdom);
- Univerza v Ljubljani – Fakulteta za Arhitekturo (UL-FA, Slovenia);
- Aalborg Universitet (AAU, Denmark) ;
- The University of Southampton (SO, United Kingdom).
3
A document producted by University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Architecture
Matevz Juvancic – Tadeja Zupancic – Tomaz Novljan – Spela Verovsek – Anja Jutraz
4
Table of contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………. p. 5
Space and media (2010/11): local learning action 1…………………….…p. 6
Space and media (2011/12): learning action 2 transnational ….….p. 11
Lighting in architecture (2011/12): learning action 2 trans.…..……p. 18
Lighting guerrilla workshop (2011/12): pilot……………………….………….p. 23
Conclusion………………………………………………………………….…………………….………….p. 29
5
Introduction
In this paper we will follow the development of the Architecture – CLIL implementation at
the Faculty of Architecture in Ljubljana in cooperation with other partners. The actions were
implemented into four courses that happened during the ARCHI21 project. The two of them were
part of the subject called Space & media in two consecutive years, the other two were
incorporated in the subject called Lighting in architecture and workshop Lighting guerrilla. There
were also other actions but to showcase the development and upgrades, these four are the most
representative ones.
The ARCHI21 project started sometime after the study year has begun and a quick
solution was needed to implement the first action into the already running courses. The Space &
media and Lighting in architecture were chosen at Ljubljana’s faculty of architecture due to their
adaptability of study work and the broad thematic frames that can accommodate different
(project) specific topics. They usually also attract exchange students whose first language is not
Slovene, which was an added bonus because of the aims of the project, namely learning of
languages (other than normally used) through the architectural content.
6
Space and media (2010/11): local learning action 1
The Faculty of Architecture of the University of Ljubljana started an intensive introduction
of the ARCHI21 CLIL activities in the framework of the content focus elective course entitled
Space and Media. The course represents an integral part of the winter semester activities within
the single masters study programme in architecture (meetings: two hours a week / 3 ECTS
student workload). The ARCHI21 CLIL activities preparation period started during the
intermediate stages of the course and they were implemented during the presentation phases of
the course.
The main topics of the course – in general – were to enhance student’s knowledge and
skills related to: cognitive processes in architectural, urban and landscape space as multimedia
space; arts and sciences of cognitive spatial processes; historical overview of ideas about
cognitive space, conceptual and experiential space, ideal and real space, information and space,
medial of learning and interpreting space (material and immaterial, existent and possible), factors
of influence of the creative process of spatial design: natural, social, cultural, technological; use of
media and technology in spatial management processes; translation of manifestative ‘languages’
of architectural environments; managing physical and virtual space based on perception;
multimedia representation techniques in different communication.
Figure 1 - face to face (f2f) sessions and students’ work presentation with content teachers,
language mediators and invited critics present (Space and Media, 2010/11)
There were 10 Erasmus students engaged in the course with 4 teachers in architecture, 1
mediator of Slovene and 1 of English language. Students were 21-25 years old, from the 3th to
the 5th year of studies, the majority from the 4th year. Their ‘online’ literacy was at the average
level. No Second Life enthusiast was ‘discovered’. The majority of students were not even
interested in SL in-world settings. Starting language level of students: English: from low to
intermediate (from: having difficulties to express themselves and their ideas to fluent speakers
7
but though intermediate writers); Slovene: from zero (=a few words such as ‘hello’ and ‘thanks’) to
low (short phrases, limited vocabulary; low level of grammar).
Non-native English learners and teachers, native and non-native Slovene learners and
teachers (non-native majority) were involved. The need to improve English proficiency of all staff
and students, as the main communication language, though highly supported by visual
communication, was obvious. Slovene words and phrases were seen as a potential for a more
culturally colourful communication, not as the main communication ‘platform’.
The whole 2010/2011 course contents was ‘coloured’ by the theme of fragile and
sensitive architecture. Students of architecture were asked to: 1. Interpret the word 'fragility' by
themselves, from their own previous knowledge and experiences; 2. Define 'fragility in
architecture' / 'architectural fragility'... and 3. Design a concrete proposal related to the 'eCAADe
2011' conference venue needs to communicate the idea of 'fragility' to the conference’s
international participants.
The Space and Media course activities, in general, were based on the initial discussion
with the course participants describing their motivation to join the course. Each session was
organized as a discussion session, where the discussion material was prepared in advance.
Inputs from all staff and students were combined to answer the specific initial contents-related
course questions. At the process of design proposal developments, all the staff and students
discussed both the solutions proposed and the presentations used. When the CLIL approach was
emphasized at the intermediate stage of the course, the language facilitators joined the course:
first with their written courseware, prepared in advance, after the discussion with the content staff,
then f2f, at the final stage with their written and recorded courseware (tools used: Audacity for
recordings and postproduction, html+java for the user interface (link:
http://predmet.fa.uni-lj.si/mmprostor/archi21/izgovorjava/archi21_slo_en_expressions.html).
Figure 2 – Project for eCAADe conference venue design: ‘coffee break room’: reflections on fragility and
reuse of existing furniture, final presentation (student D. Lopez, Space and Media, 2010/11)
The experience shows, that the second language (2l) English was mainly used in all the
cases. The role of the 2l Slovene differed in relation to the 2l English fluency level. In the cases of
8
low and intermediate 2l English level, 2l Slovene becomes a communication ‘breaker’, disrupting
the flow. However, where higher levels of the 2l English fluency were achieved, the 2l Slovene
became a communication stimulator, enhancer and emphasizer, especially in combination with
first language of students: Catalan, Basque, Portuguese. The sounds of the term ‘fragility’ in
different languages became stimulators of creativity through its architectural interpretations... In
the cases of Czech and Macedonian, the role of the 2l Slovene was somewhere in between:
Slovene and Czech ‘sound’ familiar and the language similarities encouraged students to use
Slovene at a level of complexity not understandable to others; in the case of the Macedonian the
problem was the student's low confidence in the architectural ideas and concepts he 'defended',
not the confidence in his language skills.
Figure 3 – Project for eCAADe conference venue design: ‘coffee break room’: reflections on fragility and
transmission of the idea to conference participants through interior design
(students A. Riera Rull & D. Francisco, Space and Media, 2010/11)
There were some clear lessons identified in the Ljubljana case-course:
In the process of f2f interaction, visual language was the most important integrator of all the
'languages' employed; it enabled '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 an excursion into the exotics than an actual need of students, as
long as it is fun. Fun stops when the real need to express themselves appeared, when they
needed 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 questions about how to improve student's technical skills aimed to dwell in-world
remained open.
9
The main aim of the course to achieve a higher level of knowledge and understanding of the
architectural topic concerned was remaining the main focus of the course and it was agreed
it deserves the limelight despite the secondary focus on communication and technical skills.
The Space and Media course was initially executed in English, while the majority of the
participants were foreign Erasmus students. According to the participants attending this
course in recent years we can claim the execution of the course in English encouraged
foreign students to attend the course. English language enabled the essential
communication, understanding and realization of the course tasks and further more enable
the participants’ to gain the course credits. On the contrary, execution in English seems to
divert Slovenian students from attending it, while it brought less ease in communication and
forced them to use second language, which they might not be totally comfortable with.
In terms of the social interaction and our observation of the course participants the f2f mode
was suitable. The established and launched questionnaire assisted in becoming acquainted
with the existent language skills (English and Slovene language) of the course participants
as well as with their wishes/expectations concerning the coupling of the language and
architecture learning within the Space and Media course. It furthermore enabled us to
compare the students’ self-estimated level of language skills with the actual state of affairs
(manifested at the group discussions and the course final presentations).
10 foreign students were surveyed of which 3 were Portuguese, 3 were from Spain, 2 were
coming from Czech Republic and one from Macedonia. All of them were relatively fluent in
English although only 2 of them had taken a special English course (to revise grammar and
vocabulary) before coming to Slovenia. The majority also indicated a readiness to improve
the specific architectural vocabulary and useful phrases which needed in a professional
architectural work. In most cases they wanted to improve English skills to gain technical
words, to be able to express their ideas precisely and be able to read English professional
and scientific literature. They considered that as an important investment for further work
within home or foreign countries.
Slovenian language did not seem to represent a serious challenge only to the participants
that were already familiar with it (participants from Macedonia, and Czech Republic). Due to
the similarities of Slovenian language and their mother tongue, it was easier for them to
pronounce and memorize the words. In their case (especially the participant from
Macedonia, who already speaks Slovenian relatively fluently), Slovenian language
represented a challenge within realistic reach (in terms of successful achievement of a basic
conversation level), whereas in the case of Portuguese and Spanish speaking participants,
the discrepancy between Slavic and Romanic language seems to be more hindering.
Moreover, Portuguese and Spanish speaking participants expressed doubts on
reasonableness of learning Slovenian language actively. However, they all agreed on the
great employability of the basic and selected technical Slovenian vocabulary for a
supplementary use in expressing architectural ideas as well as to facilitate their common
everyday communication during their stay in Slovenia.
10
As a result of language facilitators’ efforts and the rest of archi21 FA team, the typical
expressions for the use of presenting and defending architectural projects have been
incorporated in a web page, combining the written terms in Slovene and English as well as
their audible pronunciation. The expressions have been recorded as one session than cut
into segments, compressed for speed (internet) and compiled into a html page with direct
links to individual expressions that when clicked produced an English and Slovene audible
pronunciation.
The motivation for content based language learning was quite high but the substantial
progress in language learning terms was not to be expected – learning of terms and some
phrases and their use in SI-ENG mix was viable, syntax and sentences when presenting or
defending the architectural project were beyond the timeframe of the course, motivation of
students and the standards required to pass the subject. Students were reluctant to use
tools that were seen as too much of a compromise between functionalities needed for
architectural design and other features, they hold for additional but not essential
(communication).
Figure 4 – Project for eCAADe conference venue design: ‘coffee break room’: reflections on fragility and
transmission of the idea to conference participants through use of moveable and recyclable materials
(students A. Cmielova & A. Jung, Space and Media, 2010/11)
11
Space and media (2011/12): learning action 2 transnational
For the action 2 three main decisions on the course setting were made: 1. The CLIL will
be integrated from the beginning, 2. We will use pervasive digital environment to work in/on and
3. We will team up and collaborate long-distance with the Paris Malaquis faculty of architecture
(ENSAPM). All three decisions were reflected in careful planning and much more coordination
between the participants involved.
The setting and general aims of the course have remained the same although much
more planning went into the adaption to the ARCHI21 aims and objectives. The crucial 3
decisions were set into motion right from the start of the subject, which at the beginning – before
the tasks and scope of work have been explained in details – sported numerous candidates, but
their number soon diminished. It has to be noted that multiplication of fields where the knowledge
and skills will need to be upgraded (architecture, communication, presentation, in-world building
and several languages) influences the number of dropouts as the task becomes too demanding
and work intensive for the gain of only 3 ECTS. At the end there were 5 students who went
through the whole process, 2 Slovene students and 3 Erasmus students.
Figure 5 – Republic square in (virtual) formation: the building process of the 3D model
of the site in Second Life (Space and Media, 2011/12)
Again, the theme of the course was ‘fragility’ in urban design and course contents
‘coloured’ by the urban design problem of transforming the Republic Square in Ljubljana
12
(Slovenia) to more user friendly place. Students of architecture were asked to: 1. interpret the
word 'fragility' by themselves, from their own previous knowledge and experiences; 2. define
'fragility in architecture' / 'architectural fragility'...; 3. Attend Building class in Second Life; 4. Model
the digital replica of the site in Second life; 5. Prepare the intermediate presentation in SL; 6.
Prepare final presentation f2f and in GoToMeeting.
For the purpose of logistics and multiplication of the ARCHI21 results and benefits some
of the actions of this course were combined with the course Lighting in architecture (described in
the next chapter), taught by different teacher but essentially being part of the same initiative and
tightly connected to Space and Media process as well.
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: 1l – Slovene and 2l English. The learners were encouraged to use both English
and Slovene during the case-study presentation phase, they were also encouraged to write the
scripts for intermediate and final presentations in advance, and language teachers had intensive
sessions with them as well as corrected their scripts prior to their presentations.
Figure 6 – 3D building class in SL with students, mediators and teachers attendingsite in Second Life
(Space and Media and AAU ‘3D building teacher’ – yellow helmet – Scott Chase, 2011/12)
The transnational setting brought some logistic and scheduling problems. Ecole
Nationale superieure d’architecture Paris-Malaquais and Faculty of architecture in Ljubljana do
not have similar scheduling of classes or dedicated facilities available thus the alternative time
had to be found for collaborating crit sessions. The theme of fragility permeated both initiatives in
Paris and Ljubljana, although the site/location of the projects differed in scope, size and plan.
With so much difference it has been a challenge to establish a format that would bring the work
and presentations in sync and it is for this particular reason that much has been experimented
with suitable communication platforms. Ljubljana decided on the SL and later GoToMeeting, Paris
on the Knovio and the common Wiki later on, both relied also heavily on Skype and f2f local
meetings.
13
Figure 7 – Blended (f2f and Skype) language intensive session with students, teachers and mediators
(Space and Media, 2011/12)
The learning environment in Ljubljana thus combined usual face-to-face interactions with
2d language-related courseware (Slovene/English/French terms about fragility and terms related
to presentation of basic architectural ideas) and 3d SL environment with 3d immersive worlds
used mainly but not solely for communication. For the preparation of the intermediate and final
presentations the students still used conventional tools they use in their everyday practice
(Autocad, Sketchup, etc for 3D; Photoshop, Powerpoint, Indesign, etc for 2D graphics and
slides). The SL has also not been used for collaboration (except when building the in-world 3D
model of the site), as the course and task were not of that nature.
Again, the experience shows, that the 2l English was the main language of
communication in all the cases, but still the visual language prevailed and the spoken word was
usually only the second language compared to visual expressions. On many occasions in the
presentations of projects the visual language was the message carrier when the language skill or
sound quality diminished.
There are some clear lessons identified in the Ljubljana case-course:
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 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 2l English.
learning Slovene was more taking of an opportunity than an actual need of students than
and actual need of students, as long as it is fun. Fun stops when the real need to express
themselves appeared…, 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 student's
14
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.
Figure 8 – Intermediate presentations of student work in SL with students, teachers and mediators
(Space and Media, 2011/12)
The use of digital tools, especially 3D in-world building raised the bar in the existing digital
literacy of students. The learning curve in this aspect was very steep for them and not
always productive in terms of architectural learning. The in-world induction course was very
valuable in this aspect enabling social interaction; it was available at the beginning of the
space and media local action.
Even more valuable has been the 3D Building in-world course for students and teachers
provided by the AAU
problem of the diversity of working dynamics of staff and students involved: synchronizing
actions across institutions to achieve common student-teacher meeting sessions is a
daunting task – sometimes harder to achieve than CLIL itself
the main hindrance of designing and modelling 3D objects in SL still 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 modelling) between SL and conventional
architectural practice appears to dissuade the architecturally profiled students from using SL
as a direct tool for 3D modelling, while the format and attributes of the objects do not enable
15
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
the balance between contents workload and additional burden of learning the language is
hard to achieve – students get focused on the contents and need to be constantly reminded
to work on the language as well
Figure 9 – Students presenting their work in Knovio, with prerecorded presentation, sound and video
(Design Studio ENSAPM, 2011/12)
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-FR mix is viable, syntax and sentences when presenting or defending
the architectural project were 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 demand 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.
Combining three languages in the presentation is sometimes tricky but can be achieved
through spoken and written means (i.e. speaking in English slides with Slovene/French
captions). Achieving multilingual discussion after presentations is difficult – using English as
the common language to express ones’ opinions with Slovene expressions as emphasis
proved to be the best solution.
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.
16
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.
Figure 10 – Final presentations: Republic square Ljubljana, new urban design proposal
(A. Jerkovic, GoToMeeting, Space and Media, 2011/12)
Figure 11 – Final presentations: Republic square Ljubljana, new urban design proposal
(L. Bellatorre & A. Radsel, GoToMeeting, Space and Media, 2011/12)
17
Figure 12 – Final presentations: Republic square Ljubljana, new urban design proposal
(L. Cabot & L. Lopez, GoToMeeting, Space and Media, 2011/12)
18
Lighting in architecture (2011/12): learning action 2 transnational
Much of the stated in the previous chapter applies also in this one. The 3 crucial
decisions mentioned before were also implemented in this course and the setting has been very
similar but with different teachers as the leader and different students. 5 students participated in
this course, 2 Slovene and 1 foreign but regular student at our faculty (French, non-Slovene
speaker) and 2 Erasmus students.
The main topics of the course – in general – were:
to enhance student’s knowledge and skills related to the light as a natural phenomenon
which in various manners affects the perception of our environment, architecture and thus
our daily life in general;
to be acquainted with basic lighting techniques well as with the effects these techniques
have on the perception of different architectonic ambiences;
to be acquainted with basic light sources and their properties, with photometric quantities
and with the calculation of the illumination in interior and exterior;
to understand why the term Luminous Ambience is important for designing proper lighting in
contemporary as well as in historic urban areas.
The general theme of architectural ‘fragility’ permeated this class also, however the
emphasis has been made on the fragility of light and lighting aspects of the Republic square in
Ljubljana.
For the purposed of comparison and logistics of all initiatives the same site in Ljubljana
has been selected as well as the same (digital) tools and platforms for the design, collaboration
and presentation. Although some of the f2f sessions were separated from Space and media
course, the actions with ENSAPM collaborations were synced and both courses at that time
merged and combined resources, teachers, students and efforts. CLIL incorporation settings and
intensive language sessions were shared among both courses.
Nowadays a lot of architectural design activities are conducted as computer simulations
(technical plans, renders, animations, colour studies etc.). These simulations with already
stunning reality in displaying materials, light and shadow are then shared among architects,
investors, customers to supply them with as much data as possible of their future edifices and
urban arrangements. However, all these high-resolution images are still prepared in advance and
displayed as (set of) pictures on a computer screen or they are printed on a flat surface. A
designer as well as the potential customer so still explain and observe these images ‘from aside’.
19
In the field of lighting we can already witness vast improvements regarding high fidelity of
lighting effects simulation but still, light is something that is highly dynamic and that comes from
different directions simultaneously. Thus an “ordinary” render, as good as it may be, cannot
provide us with enough information about a complex lighting design for example, any more.
Immersive 3D virtual environments, as Second Life is, can temporarily close the gap
between more or less passive observation and active participation within the design process.
Some parallels can be pulled here with the architectural education, where the architecture
students are not just presenters of their design projects but are also our real–time guides
“through” their virtual arrangements.
Figure 13 – Republic square Ljubljana, proposal for the lighting (simulation in Second Life) emphasizing the
fragility of the space – light reflecting the remains of the roman building buried underground
(N. Plibersek, Q. Bellancourt, K. Vavpotic, L. Ritonja, P. Charny Brunet, Lighting in Architecture, 2011/12)
Students were given a task to illuminate the should-be-distinguished urban area in the
centre of Ljubljana. The Republic square is a plateau (approx. 100 by 100 meters) and
surrounded with four very different ambiences. The task was to design at least three different
lighting ambiences that would correspond or emphasize different functions in these three areas.
Our mixed group of students consisted of three French-speaking and two Slovene-
speaking students. This “mixture” proved to be very convenient for following reasons: the three
French speaking students were very skilled in Second Life but quite unfamiliar with the site and
the two Slovene speaking students were not so fluent in Second Life but very familiar with the
site. So the constant communication between them was inevitable.
20
Figure 14 – Republic square Ljubljana, proposal for the lighting (simulation in Second Life, sketches)
emphasizing the fragility of the space – illumination of the ‘tree pots’ (N. Plibersek, Q. Bellancourt, K.
Vavpotic, L. Ritonja, P. Charny Brunet, Lighting in Architecture, 2011/12)
The main communication language between them was English (the official language of
the SL interface is English as well) so they all had some benefit of that. In the intermediate stage
of the workshop we started to encourage them to teach each other French and Slovene
expressions at least for most frequently used English words. The fact that they were two pleasant
Slovene girls and three pleasant French boys helped in the learning process. For the final
presentation that has been conducted in real-time SL they taught each other, with the help of our
language mediators, some basic expressions from lighting terminology in both, Slovene and
French.
At the beginning the building class from all students from courses Space and media and
Lighting in architecture was prepared (joined sessions), and there was also special class on
lighting in SL for students from Lighting in architecture (run by Scott Chase, AAU).
Simultaneously, lighting abilities of SL immersive environment was tested and the
lessons learned would be as follows:
To every object built in SL can be assigned a function of a luminary which was productive,
taking into account the fact that LED light sources are at the moment among the most
promising light sources because of their small dimensions too. They can be attached almost
everywhere
Those interested, also general SL public, could observe the design process in SL in real-
time (as avatars). An ‘online’ help (prof. Scott Chase as Scooter Gaudio) was available and
very helpful during the experimentation
21
Some upgrade regarding lighting possibilities in SL is badly 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 SL is
to be used as a learning environment for lighting in architecture with all its advantages (and
disadvantages) of a virtual, digital, immersive, where-everything-is-possible world is to
survive.
Figure 15 – Students showing the table of expressions used during the final presentation of their Light in
architecture project (N. Plibersek, Q. Bellancourt, K. Vavpotic, L. Ritonja, P. Charny Brunet, Lighting in
Architecture, 2011/12)
Additionally, 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. So the
majority of the young person’s time available for learning will be spent for the personalization
with all that novelties and less and less time will be left for the main topic – the content
learning? The experiment/course and the whole ARCHI 21 project pointed out some
advantages as well as disadvantages of this kind of learning and teaching in the (not so
distant) future when the money spent for the public education is (will be) treated as wasted
and broad general education maybe even (God forbid!) undesirable. What can we learn from
William Gibson’s Neuromancer?
22
Figure 16 – Second Life moding and simulation – Republic Square lighting for different occasions, the user
can switch between different lighting ‘moods’ (Lighting in Architecture, 2011/12)
23
Lighting guerrilla workshop (2011/12): pilot
The fourth action built on all previous experiences trying to develop and extend the
positive ones while avoiding all the issues of the challenging lessons learned. The first challenge
came in the form of the curricula and study schedule with only the main subjects scheduled into
the summer semester. The characteristics of the main subjects make them unfavourable for
experimental or ARCHI21 project related use due to the sheer mass of students attending and
their inflexibility to accommodate additional workload and skill acquisition into their already
packed agendas. The rest of the partners faced very similar obstacles. It was thus decided that
the form of a workshop would be the most appropriate for encompassing pilot action, while at the
same time also attracting the most enthusiastic and hardworking students that were prepared to
go beyond the usual curricular workshop.
Figure 17 – Blended sessions logistics – invited critic Or Ettlinger inquires about the design f2f and passes
the microphone to student to answer; teachers, mediators, other invited critics and students are listening in
the auditorium and also in remote locations (Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
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 in 2011/12 was Movement: the artists explored the interaction
between movement and light in relation to space and also to the spectator as a co-creator (more:
http://www.svetlobnagverila.net/). The programme selector, main coordinator of the project
Lighting Guerrilla is Katerina Mirović. The workshop was implemented at the Faculty of
architecture in the period between 7. May and 8. June 2012 with weekly f2f and online sessions
every Monday from 18.00 to 20.00. There were also individual meetings between one group and
teachers, where the students got additional comments, advices. Students were divided into three
24
groups (4-5 students), they prepared three different design proposals, and at the end the winning
proposal was actually built with all hands available.
There were two stages of the workshop:
1. designing: analysis of the site, concept and location, design proposals;
2. implementation: lighting installation on the site (real-life 1:1 installation) or in virtual life (walk-
through the 3D model).
Figure 18 – Physical models of the proposals for the bridge lighting installation (Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
There were two intermediate presentations / crit-sessions:
the students presented the design proposal (implementation phase: 2D plans, 3D models,
light simulation; cost estimate, list of used materials etc.), invited critics provided comments;
the setting has been f2f at the Faculty of Architecture in Ljubljana in combination with the
GoToMeeting with invited critics.
detail design proposal (organization of the final installation, contact to external production
management, testing materials, prototyping etc.) – the invited critics evaluated all three
proposals and chose one, which was to be built in real-life (other two proposals were built in
virtual form – the students prepared walk-through the 3D model); again f2f for Slovene
students and teachers in GoToMeeting for invited critics.
Figure 19 – One of the final proposals for the bridge lighting installation - the winning group would have
received a budget of 1000 EUR for the real materialization of their proposal (Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
25
Final result of the workshop was composed of two parts:
1. presentation of the concept, visual material and text (Slovene/English/French expressions),
2. video - walk through (3D model or real model), visual material and voice (English).
Students used the platform for communication between different groups of students and
teachers at home institution: http://ucilnica1112.fgg.uni-lj.si/. It was used for exchange of data; the
mentors also monitored the partial tasks and gave some additional comments/advices.
Figure 20 – Movement created through the flow of sheets ‘scattered’ in space and illuminated from below.
(A.Hlastec, T. Dobrilovic, P. Mendusic, N. Lukin, G. Cimperman, Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
In the workshop Lighting Guerrilla the architectural students prepared project proposal for
lighting for the wooden bridge between Three bridges and Shoemakers bridge in Ljubljana.
Students worked together in small groups, 4 or 5 students (all Slovene students). They used
English (2l) as communication language for presentations, and when they lacked English
expressions or wanted to emphasize some notions, they used Slovene words (1l). Majority of
students had zero level of the 2l French language and usage of French language was not
mandatory. However, some students used French language in their final presentations (only in
writing). Some basic Slovene/English/French dictionary of architectural phrases as well as some
communication phrases were prepared in advance by our language interprets, e.g. Tadeja Kilar
and Aleksandra Zerjav. They were given to students in advance to prepare their presentations
and to use it in discussions. Students were also encouraged to write scripts for intermediate and
final presentation, and language mediators helped them to improve their language skills (virtual
communication – e-mail, Skype … - between students and language mediators before the
presentations).
26
Figure 21 – Visualization of the previous idea in daylight and at night – fragility, light and movement
(A.Hlastec, T. Dobrilovic, P. Mendusic, N. Lukin, G. Cimperman, Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
The group experience shows, that the 2l English was the main language in all the cases.
Majority of students in this workshop had intermediate level of the 2l English fluency and they did
not have problems to use it for the presentation. They used Slovene words when they did not
know the right English expression or to emphasize specific notion or relation.
The results of the project were the final ppt/pdf presentations and videos given by the
students, which were prepared in Slovene, French and in English language. We have tried to
implement the CLIL approach at different stages of the course. The selected group realized and
built their proposal in real life, other two groups built appropriate 3D models and visualizations.
There are some clear lessons identified in the Ljubljana case-course:
In the process of f2f interaction, visual language was the most important integrator of all the
'languages' employed; it enabled 'going beyond' the difficulties deriving from the diversity of
the literacy levels in relation to English/Slovene/French languages.
Learning English was the motivational factor for Slovene students. The main aim of the
course to achieve a higher level of knowledge and understanding of the architectural topic
concerned still remained as the main focus of the course and it was not fully replaced by the
focus to linguistic, communication and technical skills.
Learning French was more taking of an opportunity than an actual need of students. The
students did not really found the reason to use French expressions, although we had French
invited critics and observers, they have also spoken English and students could not defend
their projects in French due to the low level of French fluency.
27
Figure 22 – The visualization of the winning proposal of the illuminated translucent and textile sheets
(K. Istenic, A. Jericevic, S. Stimac, M. Toplisek, N. Zupancic, Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
It would be good to have mixed groups of students and teachers/tutors from different
institutions working on the same site and same tasks – for language mix and CLIL
integration – but the different dynamics of schools and student engagement do not always
(and in this case did not) permit that.
The timing of the pilot has been unfortunate and should be chosen differently next time –
however time constraints of project duration and study year dynamics do not allow ideal
scheduling of activities.
There were fewer lessons learned because of the experiences gained in previous actions. It
has to be noted that the last action has been the smoothest flowing one in terms of workflow,
groupwork arrangement, communication, technical issues, etc.
Figure 23 – The installation of the winning proposal over the wooden bridge and Ljubljanica river
(K. Istenic, A. Jericevic, S. Stimac, M. Toplisek, N. Zupancic, Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
28
Figure 24 – The installation of the winning proposal over the wooden bridge and Ljubljanica river –
impressions and passers-by fascination with the project
(K. Istenic, A. Jericevic, S. Stimac, M. Toplisek, N. Zupancic, Lighting Guerrilla, 2011/12)
29
Conclusion
The responses of learners and their teachers to CLIL-architecture integration have been
positive. While not surveyed statistically, the qualitative responses from teachers emphasized
benefits of spicing up the topics, widening the architectural vocabulary and adding cultural
richness through the use of other languages and expressions. They also stated the
disadvantages: the additional burden and learning for the teachers themselves, allocating the
time and attention from contents to language and taking care of their interplay add the complexity
to- and demand on- their job. While students did not talk about disadvantages, during their work,
they un/intentionally focused to the contents – architecture – more, sometimes forgetting or
ignoring the language aspect and they had to be reminded by the teachers to bring some of their
attention back to the language. Based on the experience described above it can be said, the
integration does not happen naturally or effortlessly on this (higher) level of education. It has to
be nurtured and focused upon constantly. With specialized tools, developed for CLIL-architecture
purposes, such as learning objects (http://archi21.eu/resources/learning-objects/), the integration
can be helped and can happen on multiple levels from the start; however the hindrance of such
tools is the very same specialization, the need to prepare them on case to case basis and time
they take to prepare.
It seems that architecture and urban design as visually oriented fields are in a better
position to bridge the language - in-field expertise divide, occasionally resorting to the different,
visual language when faced with an obstacle in communication. In this way they can be beneficial
to learning English and wide variety of other languages on the go and in parallel while learning
and gaining expertise for the profession (learning by doing or learning while doing). The
comparison of the expressions and notions in different languages also brings new meaning, new
insights and fresh discussions into the architectural (dis-) courses.
30