I teach a design vertical studio, at CSM BA Architecture, with a mix of second- and third-year students. And, in the past few years, the proportion of international students in my studio, mostly Chinese, have increased significantly.
I have successfully worked with Chinese students, helped them to integrate, and enjoyed their ambition and the work produced and had excellent student response in terms of engagement and outcomes. This year however, all my second-year Chinese students disengaged from the studio sessions after the formative review and resorted to using AI to produce their summative submissions.
In an attempt to see through this picture, I propose to look into and compare the data of this academic year and the previous one to identify what could be leading to last years’ outcome.
Structural Changes x Studio impact
- The overall course was reduced by nearly 4 weeks this academic year.
Impact: Less teaching time was replaced by independent (unsupported) study time.
- New Block system (2 blocks) replaced the previous structure of 3 terms: Term 1 – Research and Enquire, Term 2- Design and Experimentation, Term 3 Design Resolution.
Impact: New system penalised the ‘Design and Experimentation’ phase the most. Students didn’t have support and time to make mistakes, learn from mistakes and/or unexpected outcomes.
- New summative (high stake) submission in the end of Block 1 (Feb).
Impact: This point impacted heavily on student attendance and engagement
Research and Enquire are the foundation of my studio teaching. In Studio 2, we take the learning outside the studio space to the city, engage with external partners, spend time on site, use situated actions as investigative tools and devise urban strategies collectively. During research phase students engage with different policy documents and readings, engage with city users (interviews) and group discussions. I can see how the language and cultural barriers can exclude international students from meaningful engagement with all these activities, specially when Chinese students tend to stay and work among themselves.
However, when I revisited the Block 1 submissions for this assignment, it became clear that the portfolios of the international students presented good evidence of their learning from the group research. It is the lack of design process and the disconnection between the knowledge produced and the proposals (AI generated) which is concerning.
This evidence leads me to think that, it was not the immersive research method and group work that caused the disengagement. But the fact that there was no supported time to make mistakes and learn from the mistakes, time to learn from peers, and to challenge the knowledge produced.
Intervention:
Given the limitations of this exercise, I will focus my intervention on developing and introducing a routinely and structured activity, which is possible within my capacity and contract, to: 1- prioritise studio time for group discussions and collaborations during the design phase, and 2- motivate students to test ideas and take risks, to allow mistakes and unexpected outcomes to be explored.