BRIEF: WIKI
GROUPS A + 1 DUE IN WEEKS: 4, 7, 10
GROUPS B + 2 DUE IN WEEKS: 5, 8, 11
GROUPS C + 3 DUE IN WEEKS:
6, 9, 12
ASSESSMENT WEIGHTING: 15% + 15% + 15% = 45%
OUTLINE
TIMETABLE: 9 Weeks, 45% of final grade.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPUTING ISSUE:Group theorectcal position
ARCHITECTURAL COMPUTING CHALLENGE: The Wiki
SOFTWARE: Wiki, Flicker, Youtube, UT3, Premire, and others as may be necessary
TECHNIQUES: Written communication, oral communication, referencing, negotiation, editing
OUTPUTS: A Wiki with presenations that elaborate on 3 themes of collaboration
PREMISE: Wiki's provide a complex portal through which students are able to both present and reflect on their groups theoretical position.
PROCEDURE
In groups of 5 use a Wiki as a portal through which to present the UT3 environment that represents your unbuilt architectural project. In each presentation use one of the themes of collaboration to bring specific aspects of your project into focus. For a particular presentation the Wiki will contain a written component of 1000 words (comprised of a carefully edited compilation of words from each students blog), a selection of 7 images and approximately 3 minutes of video footage. It will also contain links to reference material and other relevant contextual information.
THEMES OF COLLABORATION
In pairs of groups (A1, B2 and C3) choose 3 themes that you will use to bring specific aspects of your project into focus.
| THEME | GROUPS | WEEK OF PRESENTATION |
| DISCIPLINE | A1 | WEEK 4 (April 9) |
| RECORD | B2 | WEEK 5 (April 16) |
| KNOWLEDGE | C3 | WEEK 6 (April 23) |
| INTENT | A1 | WEEK 7 (April 30) |
| HIERARCHY | B2 | WEEK 8 (May 7) |
| CONTEXT | C3 | WEEK 9 (May 14) |
| RENUMERATION | A1 | WEEK 10 (May 21) |
| PLANNING | B2 | WEEK 11 (May 28) |
| CONFLICT | C3 | WEEK 12 (June 4) |
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
In addition to the overall course assessment criteria students will be assessed on the
level and extent to which they engage with the criteria listed below:
CLARITY OF THE ORAL PRESENTATION _ Does the oral presentation communicate a clear, concise and appropriately delivered Group Theoretical Position?
CLARITY OF THE WRITTEN PRESENTATION_ Does the written presentation communicate a clear, concise and appropriately delivered Group Theoretical Position?
DISTINCTIVEBNESS AND SPECIFICITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL EXAMPLES_ Are the examples used to elaborate the particular theme of collaboration distinctive and specific?
REFERENCING _ Are all sources of content properly referenced?
THE CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT_ Is it clear that the students have a strong grasp of the conceptual context of their theme of collaboration?
THE STILL IMAGES_ Do the still images support and extend our understanding of the Group Theoretical Position the students are presenting?
THE VIDEO CAPTURES AND EDITING_ Do the video captures (including the way they have been cut together) support and extend our understanding of the Group Theoretical Position that the students are presenting?