| Summary: | 碩士 === 中原大學 === 建築研究所 === 94 === Abstract
The architectural design education in Taiwan has reached a serious deadlock. It lingered in the outdated formula of architectonics when people in Taiwan society stepped into the phase of Civil Society. Under the current and expectation of envisioning new architectonics, people in Taiwan do little to enlist the Participatory Design as the pedagogy on the agenda of architecture. In that case, the specialized education of architecture is easy to fall behind what Taiwan people have expected.
I went to Tieban village of Nangan township in Matsu in 2003, in which I participated a program—“Community Mobilization Plan of Rebuilding.” After that experience, I took part in “Creative Education Program” programmed by Ministry of Education, which is held to rebuild Tieban community. Through the rebuilding experiences, I therefore learned how to blueprint another picture of homeland. By means of Participatory Design, “Creative Education Program” is an attempt to connect the community participation and the designed curriculum to make students learn to face “Reality.” Along with the experiences of both participating and executing the program, I found that not only lecturing but also learning need to be improved. There are some practical problems that require people to pay more attention to.
This thesis is a study of “Creative Education Program,” which I mainly work on from the perspectives of students’ learning experiences as well as teachers’ lecturing experiences. There are four chapters in my thesis.
Chapter one is a review of architectural education in Taiwan. I contextualize Participatory Design along with the social context. Via the contextualization I can hence analyze and research on why architectural design education nowadays in Taiwan is in the deadlock.
Chapter two is both a record and description of our community mobilization in Matsu. I focus on my practical experiences of Participatory Design in this chapter. Also, how to successfully make the Tieban people mobilize themselves is also included.
Chapter three is involved in three interests, including my analysis of Tieban case, the filed investigation on both staff and stuff, and the interview with Tieban people. By doing this, I hope to explain and to get a kernel of why the architectural education in Taiwan is outdated.
Chapter four is a reflection on the outdated architectural education in Taiwan. I conclude with the review of our mobilization in Matsu and then try to propose a new pedagogy as architectural design education according to Tieban case. I take five points into consideration:
1. Students play the key role in our mobilization in Matsu. In the community, they subvert the fixed right/power among people’s relations; they succeed in getting the mobility in crossing-filed; they initiate the new.
2. “Seeing and Being Seen” as the way for our team to interact with the community.
3. “Changeable and Unchangeable” as the concept to convey the limit of outdated architectural design and the uniqueness of Participatory Design.
4. To establish a sort of platform as well as communicating tool of architectural pedagogy for next generation.
5. “Off Classroom, Within Community” as the ultimate goal of service-learning to reach a combination of integration and reciprocation between the society and the academia.
|
|---|
