Informal Learning as a design practice: creating safe space to engage with real-world problems

Training students to tackle real world problems requires safe space for reflective learning. The learning environment is crucial to create an adequate informal environment for reflexive learning and to strengthen collaboration, self-management, positionality, collective evaluation.
The relation between physical configuration of learning and learning demands is often seen as a static configuration. By testing how different interventions can support reflexive learning we illustrate their dynamic interrelation and develop a framework and prototypes to produce attractive and adapted spaces responding to the intrinsic complexity of study programs dealing with real-world problems.
The project gives students and staff a framework to adaptively design safe spaces for learning, for themselves or for other fellow colleagues and stakeholders of ETH. It operationalise the way students, teachers and staff can learn to design and experiment with physical configurations for informal learning within existing learning environments and create an adequate learning landscape on campus.
In working on real sites with their respectives stakeholders, and in implementing design proposals on site, students learn to work with each other and with stakeholders from very different backgrounds. In their work, students must also incorporate and take into account concrete needs and wishes.
The unique position of the project to focus on the empowerment of students to analyze and design their own spaces for learning is new to the ETH and has strong transformative potential.
By integrating the strengths of studio teaching with the analytical process of design research the project found an interesting way to transfer the often implicit and tacit knowledge to a larger group of students and tutors across departments. The innovative character of the project is furthermore guaranteed by the structural interdisciplinary design of the didactic concept of the studio, where architectural design research is combined with different cases of real-world problem based learning across departments and evaluation methodologies in the cognitive sciences.

6 months before the course, the framework for pedagogical and operational aspects of the studio was defined with stakeholders (D-ARCH, D-GESS, D-USYS and ETH-Bibliothek) by two scientific assistants from two chairs. The teaching material for the students was prepared. At the beginning of the semester, students received a reader with basic information about each site, case study for spatial transformation. The reader also included readings and design references, as well as a description of the methodological framework (Reflexive Learning, Architectural Behaviorology, Design in Dialogue, Wood and textile, 1:1 Mock-up, Observation and Evaluation). For the second semester, an additional reader was created describing the first semester’s work for each site, with the associated outlook, in order to allow the new students to continue working with the knowledge previously acquired.
The project was then implemented in the context of two design studios at D-ARCH (semesters HS 2021 and FS 2022) for third-year bachelor and master students (semesters IV to IX), including some mobility students. In HS 2021, 25 D-ARCH students were able to enroll in the course, while in FS 2022 there were 15 students. Both semesters were conducted in exchange with D-USYS students and faculty, in close collaboration with faculty from the Chair of Cognitive Science, with the owner of the A&A property, and with staff from the ETH Library InfoCenter. The studio focused on integrating informal learning environments in three spaces at ETH Zurich: 1) studio and collective spaces at D-ARCH, Langhalle ONA building, 2) public learning environment, ETH Library InfoCenter, HG, 3) group work setting (UPL course 1st semester in classroom G42 – collective open space “Green Floor” in 2nd semester), D-USYS, CHN building. Students worked in groups of 3 to 5. Students also worked individually on a research report collecting their own observations to support the group work. Students learned to analyze each case by going on site, transfering their observations in actor network hand drawings, and presenting their observations in collective assessment and exchange formats implemented on site or in the studio space. In a second phase, the groups generated a design proposal for their sites in the form of hand drawings with project details, 1:1 models, and on-site interventions. Students conducted the collective evaluation to allow all stakeholders to participate in the discussions and to test and discuss the impact of the interventions together.

It was a success how the project team, a collaboration of several chairs, could run the studio and how well the collaboration with external stakeholders worked. The project is a reference at D-ARCH in the context of the curriculum revision: a studio course run in collaboration between chairs of different institutes. Some teaching methods have been taken over and are used by several chairs: 1:1 mock-up, “Action” studio (real stakeholders and action in real-world, hand-drawing). This has an impact in the definition of future teaching methods at D-ARCH. Co-teaching (min 2 chairs across institutes) will become much more present at D-ARCH, for studio courses and masterthesis. This shows a clear result of the project. The project format also succeeded in bringing together the many ETH stakeholders involved in the definition of learning spaces at teaching, research and operative levels and confirms the added value of interdisciplinary learning and exchange.
Practically we observed an evolution from the 1st to 2nd semester, run with different students. Stakeholders gained confidence in the collaboration and got more open for students’proposals, the communication and relationship improved a lot. Observations and design proposals became deeper and sharper. The transmission of 1st semester results worked well and could set a good ground for the 2nd semester. Working 1:1 on site with real stakeholders is a challenge, both for the teaching team and for students. The learning outcomes are larger for all, students and staff develop practical skills that can only be developed in real-word cases. From a pedagogical perspective, a small number of students was easier for control and communication. Working similarly with more students would require a larger staff or a change of format to e.g. an integrated discipline, another studio having Learning spaces as core topic, or a series of focus works. Administratives steps for implementation require time. In the life span of this project, it seemed important to us to develop other, smaller projects in addition to the studio (e.g. ONA Community Kitchen, InfoCenter ETH Library, ELS Lab (project development and workshops at D-arch and ZHdK). This Innovedum, together with the FLI project opened the door for further collaborations with further institutes (D-BAUG, HSG St.-Gallen, ZHdK). The manual could not be completed under these conditions, but the work on the topic will be continued within other frameworks at both chairs at D-arch (PhD, Seminar Week, ONA Users Committee).