通過虛擬工作室進行服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)

作者：李晟京（韓國）

翻譯：蔣雨婷

校對：吳曉彤

Text: Sungkyung Lee

Translator: JIANG Yu-ting

Proofreading: WU Xiao-tong

通過虛擬工作室進行服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)

作者：李晟京（韓國）

翻譯：蔣雨婷

校對：吳曉彤

Text: Sungkyung Lee

Translator: JIANG Yu-ting

Proofreading: WU Xiao-tong

這篇研究探討了視頻會議技術(shù)在服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)工作室教學(xué)中的作用，以及在這一過程中如何加強社區(qū)參與的好處，同時探討了佐治亞大學(xué)（University Georgia，簡稱UGA）環(huán)境和設(shè)計學(xué)院（College of Environment and Design）2014秋季學(xué)年的服務(wù)學(xué)習(xí)工作室項目中學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)體驗。該項目是跨文化和多組織的活動，佐治亞大學(xué)學(xué)生與非洲裔美國人社區(qū)組織——新社區(qū)（New Communities）及佐治亞州奧爾巴尼的一個農(nóng)業(yè)教育中心的當(dāng)?shù)貙W(xué)生合作。本文基于后期調(diào)查和參與觀察，評估了技術(shù)和虛擬工作室教學(xué)在以下兩個領(lǐng)域的成效：1）增加整個過程中的社區(qū)參與；2）為學(xué)生提供設(shè)計成圖、表現(xiàn)和檢驗的完整經(jīng)驗（Zeisel，1984）。在此過程中，學(xué)生不僅與社區(qū)伙伴一同制定、交流設(shè)計理念，也通過視頻會議的在線合作參與他們的設(shè)計交互測試。

服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)工作室教學(xué)；視頻會議；多機構(gòu)和跨文化合作

1 簡介

服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)是一種以學(xué)生和社區(qū)共同受益的方式來整合公共服務(wù)和社區(qū)服務(wù)的教學(xué)策略。在佐治亞大學(xué)，服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)作為重要的教育機會被重視，它使得學(xué)生可以將學(xué)科知識應(yīng)用到社會實際中，并將服務(wù)經(jīng)驗轉(zhuǎn)化為因情況而變的學(xué)習(xí)經(jīng)驗[1]。將公共服務(wù)及拓展與設(shè)計教學(xué)相聯(lián)系是環(huán)境與設(shè)計學(xué)院（College of Environment and Design，簡稱CED）的4個戰(zhàn)略計劃之一。為了實現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)，CED為學(xué)生提供了各種各樣的服務(wù)學(xué)習(xí)機會，包括社區(qū)專家研討會（專家研討會議連接程序）、使用從當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)回收再生的建筑材料來建造的設(shè)計—建造項目（材料再利用計劃），以及文化資源調(diào)查項目（Findit項目）。這些程序由社區(qū)設(shè)計及保護中心（Center for CommunityDesign & Preservation，簡稱CCDP）實施，引導(dǎo)學(xué)生到實際生活中去，在與當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)、同事及未來雇主的工作過程中獲取一手學(xué)習(xí)經(jīng)驗。1997年到2015年間，CCDP完成了91個社區(qū)設(shè)計專家研討會、48個材料再利用設(shè)計—建造項目，以及60個文化資源調(diào)查項目，為7 283名學(xué)生提供了與各地方政府和國家機關(guān)、非營利組織、社會機構(gòu)以及缺少服務(wù)的社區(qū)進行項目合作的機會[2]。

教師和職員對于優(yōu)化CED的服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)也做出了許多貢獻(xiàn)。每年教師領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的個人工作室項目和CED廣泛的設(shè)計專家研討會總體規(guī)劃項目都有關(guān)于當(dāng)?shù)氐臍v史性城市中心、廊道、自然區(qū)、生態(tài)恢復(fù)點和居民區(qū)。自1990年以來，有400多個團隊受到了CED專業(yè)設(shè)計的服務(wù)。僅在2014學(xué)年，風(fēng)景園林碩士學(xué)位和學(xué)士學(xué)位教學(xué)體系中就有19門課程有社區(qū)參與及其延伸，其中12個被列為S級，是由大學(xué)認(rèn)定的官方服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)課程。62項CED教師/職員牽頭的服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)項目已經(jīng)完成（CCNP 2015）。本文展示了2014年秋季完成的教師牽頭的服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)項目之一，著重強調(diào)其使用視頻會議虛擬工作室的服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)教學(xué)方法。

2 為什么服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)需要虛擬工作室？

作為一個服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)項目“新社區(qū)的總體規(guī)劃和場地設(shè)計“（Master Plan and Site Design for New Communities）是設(shè)計工作室課程的土地4095可持續(xù)（LAND 4095 Sustainability）的課題。這個高級本科工作室課程采用服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)和公民參與作為學(xué)生的職業(yè)和個人發(fā)展手段。這個課程中的Studio項目旨在為學(xué)生提供一個機會，去從社區(qū)層面理解復(fù)雜的可持續(xù)性問題，并通過創(chuàng)新景觀設(shè)計解決社區(qū)的具體挑戰(zhàn)。因此，可持續(xù)發(fā)展的范圍不僅限于資源自給的相關(guān)概念和技能，而且擴展到設(shè)計場地的效能、社會影響及其周圍環(huán)境、人文景觀和公民參與。該工作室課程采用了多種學(xué)生—社區(qū)參與方式，比如參加社區(qū)會議、采訪居民，以及在各種實踐項目中與社區(qū)合作。這些參與經(jīng)歷通常與多層次的現(xiàn)場分析匹配，讓學(xué)生采用不同的方法（即調(diào)查、地圖分析，行為觀察）在不同的尺度（即場地、社區(qū)、城市、區(qū)域）中探索場地背景。這類課堂活動旨在幫助學(xué)生更好地了解場地特質(zhì)、社區(qū)的具體需要和潛力。

服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)工作室通過參與過程和直接的學(xué)生—社團互動促進探究性學(xué)習(xí)。當(dāng)然，我們期待在整個項目期間保持持續(xù)而有意義的互動參與。然而，確保全程持續(xù)參與并不容易，它涉及到各種限制，比如師資力量和時間、學(xué)生的出勤率、社區(qū)的情況、長途旅行的距離或其他原因。出于這個原因，學(xué)生與社區(qū)的互動往往安排在項目的開頭或結(jié)尾，而中間的階段則像傳統(tǒng)工作室那樣，學(xué)生以師徒的方式依靠導(dǎo)師提供的資料進行設(shè)計[3]。為了解決教學(xué)問題，這項服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)項目通過虛擬會議技術(shù)，促進了雅典市佐治亞大學(xué)CED學(xué)生和佐治亞州奧爾巴尼200英里（約321.87km）外的的社區(qū)伙伴之間的設(shè)計合作。

虛擬教室/工作室已經(jīng)被美國的主要景觀設(shè)計項目采用。已證實這種教學(xué)方法在課程資料的無障礙傳遞方面是卓有成效的[4]，它為學(xué)生提供了跨文化的學(xué)習(xí)機會[5]。然而，工作室教學(xué)技術(shù)通常依賴一個指定的課程網(wǎng)站，或側(cè)重于存儲在線課程材料的能力，以便學(xué)生日后訪問。這種模式適合以網(wǎng)站為基礎(chǔ)的教學(xué)，其合作是通過網(wǎng)上數(shù)據(jù)共享而不是實時交互完成。

虛擬工作室利用視頻會議技術(shù)通過實時交流提供了面對面的互動，學(xué)生不必長途跋涉去跟社區(qū)伙伴見面就可以參與服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)，獲得解決現(xiàn)實世界問題的經(jīng)驗。學(xué)生可以利用視頻會議來分享他們的設(shè)計思路，獲得社區(qū)伙伴的實時反饋，并通過與社區(qū)特定需求和目標(biāo)的比較來提高自己的設(shè)計。虛擬工作室還允許將學(xué)生—社區(qū)合作擴大為更大的共同利益合作團隊，從多種多樣的利益共同體和有關(guān)專家的設(shè)計對話中進行學(xué)習(xí)。

同樣值得注意的是，利用視頻會議的虛擬工作室和合作設(shè)計是美國一種新興的專業(yè)趨勢。許多景觀設(shè)計師、規(guī)劃師和政府官員利用該技術(shù)為國際項目工作，或只是簡單的同客戶、同事和其他不同的地點和時區(qū)的專業(yè)人員一起工作。盡管虛擬工作室的理念對風(fēng)景園林學(xué)科的教育工作者來說已經(jīng)不新鮮了，但視頻會議是一個相對較新的技術(shù)，且很少應(yīng)用到服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)中。

3 佐治亞州奧爾巴尼的“新社區(qū)”

除了服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)經(jīng)歷，這個工作室項目中的學(xué)生——多數(shù)是白人——通過與代表南方非裔美國人文化的社區(qū)組織合作，獲得了一個有價值的跨文化學(xué)習(xí)機會。新社區(qū)是一個于1965年誕生于民事權(quán)利運動的美國黑人基層組織。創(chuàng)始成員查爾斯?謝羅德（Charles Sherrod）和雪莉?謝羅德（Shirley Sherrod）建立了一個基于集體農(nóng)莊的組織。40多年的時間里，該組織一直提倡社會正義，并通過農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)營、教育和社會意識幫助佐治亞州的貧困農(nóng)民。他們是公認(rèn)的美國社區(qū)土地信托的原型之一[6]。

2011年，新社區(qū)購買了1 638英畝(約662.88hm2）土地，這是由格魯吉亞最大的奴隸主之一于1851年開發(fā)的老種植園。種植園本來叫賽普拉斯池塘（Cypress Pond），但由于場所深深共鳴的4個概念而更名為Resora。這4個概念是彈性、恢復(fù)、資源和共鳴[7]。該地塊掩映在各種各樣的自然景色和歷史資源中，它們對現(xiàn)存的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)和南方文化都有重要意義。新社區(qū)在優(yōu)先尊重現(xiàn)有自然和文化景觀的同時，也有希望成為創(chuàng)新的農(nóng)業(yè)教育和社區(qū)中心，為基于農(nóng)業(yè)經(jīng)濟和社區(qū)營造的可持續(xù)農(nóng)村經(jīng)濟發(fā)展提供典范。

為了這一愿景， 2013年，新社區(qū)與帕金斯威爾（Perkins +Will）合作，奠定了整個地塊的第一個戰(zhàn)略計劃。根據(jù)該場地獨特的景觀類型和現(xiàn)有的自然文化資源，Resora總體規(guī)劃提出將3個特色區(qū)域作為最初規(guī)劃框架：保護區(qū)、農(nóng)場和村莊（圖1-4）。保護區(qū)作為獨立的體驗娛樂的區(qū)域，提出保護和利用現(xiàn)有松樹林、柏樹成蔭的池塘和各種各樣的沼澤地野生動物。農(nóng)場作為農(nóng)業(yè)生產(chǎn)的地塊被現(xiàn)存的山核桃和果園圍繞。最后，社區(qū)作為文化中心被現(xiàn)有的主要房屋、歷史磨坊結(jié)構(gòu)和小木屋圍繞。

5 項目和工作室的教學(xué)順序

新社區(qū)總體規(guī)劃和場地設(shè)計的范圍，包括：1）利用由現(xiàn)有總體規(guī)劃框架所列的環(huán)境、經(jīng)濟和社會資源的清單進行場地分析；2）開發(fā)現(xiàn)場設(shè)計實施的詳細(xì)總體規(guī)劃設(shè)計。最終的工作室成果以專業(yè)報告（74頁）、海報和學(xué)生展示的形式交付新社區(qū)。

工作室每周花8小時碰3次面。 13名學(xué)生（5名研究生和8名高年級本科生）花費7周時間參與完成了這一項目。他們中的11人熟悉服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)方法，并在過去參加過1-3個服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)景觀設(shè)計項目。為了在整個時期保持持續(xù)的學(xué)生—社區(qū)參與，項目采用面對面和虛擬場地參與兩種形式。為了面對面參與，第2周的開始安排了為期2天的現(xiàn)場實地考察，學(xué)生最終展示安排在第7周結(jié)束（圖5）?，F(xiàn)場考察由會見新社區(qū)代表開始，隨后是乘拖拉機干草車參觀整個場地。參觀結(jié)束后，學(xué)生分成3組，分組采集現(xiàn)場調(diào)研數(shù)據(jù)，進行初步場地分析。第2天，學(xué)生團隊、新社區(qū)代表以及來自奧爾巴尼技術(shù)學(xué)院（Albany Technical College）和特納工作公司中心（Turner Job Corp Center）的本地學(xué)生合作制定一個初步的設(shè)計概念。學(xué)生合作團隊基于數(shù)據(jù)明確了場地的優(yōu)勢和劣勢，在社區(qū)會議上展示了他們初步的概念和規(guī)劃，參加公開討論、聽取新社區(qū)和當(dāng)?shù)鼐用竦姆答佉庖姟?/p>

實地考察后，學(xué)生回到UGA學(xué)校工作室用一個半星期的時間，利用實地考察收集的信息完成初步總體規(guī)劃。為了幫助學(xué)生改進提高他們的設(shè)計，安排他們與新社區(qū)進行虛擬工作室會議。虛擬工作室會議的教學(xué)形式與設(shè)計批判會類似，學(xué)生展示工作進展中的材料，回答評審提出的任何問題并接受批判。黑板協(xié)作視頻會議軟件用于協(xié)助虛擬會議，提高了參與度，可以使不同地點和時區(qū)的人們感覺是在同一個房間進行視頻會議。

總共3次虛擬工作室會議，安排在第4和第6周，每次會議是3小時。除了來自新社區(qū)的代表，還有羅格斯大學(xué)的兩位景觀設(shè)計教師（Laura Lawson博士和Holly Nelson）和一名研究生（Han Yan）參加了虛擬工作室會議。他們參與這項服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)項目的前期準(zhǔn)備工作，并熟悉該項目和現(xiàn)場問題。此外，佛羅里達(dá)州奧蘭多EDSA的資深景觀設(shè)計師（Jeong Yoon Park）也通過視頻會參與審查了學(xué)生設(shè)計，并從專業(yè)實踐的角度為學(xué)生提供了寶貴的反饋意見（圖6）。

6 方法

為了檢驗視頻會議技術(shù)在服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)工作室教學(xué)中的作用，該研究評估了項目中加強社區(qū)參與方面的部分——虛擬演播室的教育效益，并提供了以成圖、展示、檢驗活動為特點的設(shè)計過程的完整體驗[8]。工作室教學(xué)之后，進行了一項關(guān)于12名學(xué)生參與者及整個項目期間學(xué)生課堂活動的參與性觀察的調(diào)查。后期的問卷調(diào)查專門解決一些問題，如虛擬工作室如何幫助學(xué)生制定新的設(shè)計理念（成圖）、更好的通過圖形和語言表達(dá)他們的想法（展示），以及檢驗或改進設(shè)計理念（檢驗）(圖7）。

7 結(jié)果和討論

學(xué)生們積極表示，利用視頻會議技術(shù)來全面提升服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)體驗和設(shè)計過程的虛擬工作室具有普遍有效性。在5個等級中（1表示沒有用，3表示有用，5表示非常有用），在了解社區(qū)具體需求和目標(biāo)這一方面，學(xué)生們給虛擬工作室會議打的平均分為3.2；在加強設(shè)計過程的成圖、展示和檢驗活動這方面，平均分是3.6、4.1和3.7。學(xué)生們發(fā)現(xiàn)，對于形成表達(dá)設(shè)計的新想法和新理念、創(chuàng)造滿足社區(qū)具體需求的設(shè)計來說，通過視頻會議與社區(qū)伙伴在線合作是非常有用的。在多樣的虛擬工作室會議中，學(xué)生必須展示工作進展中的材料而不是一個完整項目。這種方式也很受學(xué)生的歡迎，因為這有助于他們改善項目的圖像交流水平、理解有效溝通技巧的重要性，以及闡明其理念。他們也發(fā)現(xiàn)虛擬工作室會議能幫助他們退后一步，用批判的眼光審視他們自己的設(shè)計，或者通過評價者的反饋來檢驗他們的設(shè)想，以此改進設(shè)計。

至于學(xué)生對虛擬工作室教學(xué)有效性的書面意見，他們欣賞“能夠與社區(qū)團體的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人聯(lián)系”、“我們工作室之外的個人反饋”、“向社區(qū)客戶闡明理念”、“學(xué)生和社區(qū)伙伴之間更多的討論”以及“設(shè)計評審和批判的新方法”。對話是這個項目中現(xiàn)場決策和解決問題的顯著方法之一。無論是常規(guī)的工作室時間還是虛擬工作室會議，學(xué)生的行為都很明顯的體現(xiàn)了這一點。3次虛擬會議的過程中，學(xué)生的重點從追求個性化的設(shè)計理念，轉(zhuǎn)移到理解社區(qū)伙伴關(guān)于設(shè)計偏好、興趣、時間安排和資源相關(guān)的優(yōu)先級。學(xué)生積極參與課堂討論或使用虛擬演播室會議補充遺漏或曲解的部分信息。這個對話過程幫助學(xué)生發(fā)現(xiàn)他們初步設(shè)計的破綻或不切實際之處，促使他們在設(shè)計過程中互相評價，最終引導(dǎo)項目更好地適應(yīng)社區(qū)需要。

盡管有學(xué)生的評價結(jié)果和觀察結(jié)果，仍然存在降低虛擬工作室會議音頻和視覺質(zhì)量的主要技術(shù)和操作上的限制。許多學(xué)生評論有時“很難跟上評論人的意見”，不得不應(yīng)對“因技術(shù)問題而延長審查時間（上課時間）”。

從反復(fù)試驗中吸取教訓(xùn)，視聽問題似乎被視頻會議技術(shù)和課堂情境的性質(zhì)影響。首先，重要的是了解視頻會議是對多人實時在線協(xié)作的優(yōu)化體驗。在某種程度上，對話本身就是數(shù)據(jù)共享和信息交換的主要方式。從數(shù)據(jù)共享的角度來看，視頻會議平臺比使用物理網(wǎng)站在線存儲、下載、交換課程資料的虛擬工作室模型可靠性要低。由于與網(wǎng)速、網(wǎng)絡(luò)帶寬容量、個人筆記本電腦狀況和參加視頻會議的人數(shù)相關(guān)的各種問題，視聽通訊延遲、信息失真這類技術(shù)故障常會發(fā)生。

教室布局是這個項目中另一個可能影響視聽問題的因素，它促進學(xué)生對虛擬工作室會議的被動注意。學(xué)生們舉行虛擬會議的現(xiàn)實課堂上配備了一個臺式計算機、一個房間前的投影屏幕，以及覆蓋整個空間的揚聲器/麥克風(fēng)。這種教室設(shè)置能滿足傳統(tǒng)的課堂教學(xué)，教師在教室前講課的主講桌為重點，而學(xué)生們坐在后面聽。然而這個特殊的課堂環(huán)境既限制了以團隊為基礎(chǔ)的課堂活動，也限制了學(xué)生個體在視頻會議的積極參與。此外，采用學(xué)生個體或?qū)W生團隊個人桌面方式的分散式教室設(shè)置，可能更有助于鼓勵學(xué)生的參與，并且緩解視聽問題如下圖所示（圖8和 圖9）。

8 結(jié)論

為加強設(shè)計過程中的社區(qū)參與、提高學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)體驗，展示服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)項目包括面對面和虛擬學(xué)生—社區(qū)互動。工作室之后的調(diào)查結(jié)果以及參與觀察確保了虛擬工作室會議有助于提升服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)的整體體驗，加強設(shè)計過程的完整體驗。這項初步研究并沒有表明使用視頻會議的虛擬工作室模式可以代替服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)工作室教學(xué)中面對面的學(xué)生—社區(qū)參與。然而，有足夠的證據(jù)證明其可以補充面對面的參與，因為其可供選擇的在線合作學(xué)習(xí)環(huán)境支持互動式和對話式的設(shè)計過程。

與初步研究相關(guān)的虛擬工作室教學(xué)的具體教育效益總結(jié)如下：

（1）通過在這一過程中加強社區(qū)參與、幫助學(xué)生了解社會的具體需求和目標(biāo)來強化服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)。

（2）有能力在UGA校園為學(xué)生提供參與服務(wù)性學(xué)習(xí)體驗，而不必長途跋涉。

（3）通過讓學(xué)生與多個利益相關(guān)方接觸、在多機構(gòu)跨文化背景下交流設(shè)計來增強體驗式學(xué)習(xí)。

（4）通過強化成圖、檢驗和設(shè)計過程的展示來增強設(shè)計思維。

（5）通過對話和互動驅(qū)動的設(shè)計過程使學(xué)生參與問題解決和現(xiàn)場決策。

（6）為學(xué)生提供各種學(xué)習(xí)機會，提高他們的團隊協(xié)作能力、專業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力和溝通能力。

1 Introduction

Service-learning is a teaching strategy that integrates public service and community outreach in instruction in ways that mutually benefit students and community. At the University of Georgia, service-learning is valued as an important educational opportunity for students to apply their disciplinary knowledge to real word situations in a community and to convert the service experience to contextualized learning experience (Bringle and Hatcher 1995). Linking public service and outreach to design education is one of the four goals in the strategic plan of the College of Environment and Design (CED). In order to achieve the goal, CED provides students a variety of servicelearning opportunities including community charrettes (the Charrette Connection Program), design-build projects using reclaimed salvaged building materials from the local community (Material Reuse Program), and cultural resource survey projects (Findit Program). These programs, administrated by the Center for Community Design & Preservation (CCDP), engage students in real life situations where they learn about issues directly from working with local communities, colleagues, and future employers. Between 1997 and 2015, CCDP accomplished 91 community design charrettes, 48 material reuse design-build projects, and 60 cultural resource survey projects, providing 7,283 students to collaborate on projects with various local governments and state agencies, non-profit organization, social institutions, and underserved communities (CCDP 2015).

Faculty and staff also contribute greatly to enhancing service-learning in CED. Each year faculty-led individual studio projects and CED wide design charrette master planning projects are completed for local historic downtowns, corridors, natural areas, ecological restoration sites, and residential neighborhoods. Since 1990, over 400 communities received professional design assistance from CED. In the 2014 academic year alone, 19 courses in the Master of Landscape Architecture and Bachelor of Landscape Architecture curriculums had community engagement and outreach components. 12 of them were listed as s-suffix courses, which is the official service-learning course designation approved by the University. 62 CED faculty/staff-led service learning projects were completed (CCDP 2015). This paper showcases one of the faculty-led service-learning projects completed in the fall 2014 with an emphasis on its service learning studio pedagogy using virtual studio through video conferencing.

2 Why virtual studio for servicelearning?

The service learning project, Master Plan and Site Design for New Communities, was taught in LAND 4095 Sustainability in Design Studio Course. This upper level undergraduate studio course uses service learning and civic engagement as a vehicle for students’ professional and personal development. Studio projects taught in this course aim to provide students an opportunity to understand complex sustainability issues at a community level and to address specific challenges with the community through innovative landscape design. Thus, the scope of sustainability is not limited to the concepts and skills associated with resource self-sufficiency, but is expanded to the performance of designed sites, impacts to the community and its surroundings, cultural landscape, and citizen participation. The studio course uses a variety of student-community engagement methods, such as attending community meetings, interviewing residents, and working with a community on various hands-on projects. These student-community engagement experiences are typically paired with a multi-level site analysis where students explore the site contexts at multiple scales (i.e. site, neighborhood, city, region) using different methods (i.e. survey, map analysis, behavior observation). These class activities are intended to help students gain a better understanding of the site’s particularity, specific community needs, and potentials.

Service-learning studio promotes inquirybased learning through the process of engagement and direct student-community interaction. Naturally, sustaining meaningful studio-communityengagement throughout the project period is highly desired. However, it is not that easy to secure sustained engagement the entire time due to various limitations related to faculty resource and time, student availability, community situations, long travel distance, and others. For this reason, student-community interactions are often arranged at the start or the end of a project leaving the time in between taught rather similar to the conventional studio class in which students develop design in studio following the master-apprentice approach and relying on the information given by the instructor (Lawson 2005). To address the pedagogical issue, this service learning project incorporated virtual studio using video conferencing technology and facilitated design collaboration between CED students on UGA campus in Athens and the community partner located over 200 miles away in Albany, GA.

Virtual classroom/studio is already adopted by major Landscape Architecture programs in the United States. The pedagogy is proven effective in terms of barrier-free delivery of course materials (Li and Murphy 2004) and providing cross-cultural learning opportunities to students (Hou, Kinoshita, and Ono 2005). However, technology used for the studio instruction usually relies on a designated course website or focuses on providing the capacity to store course materials on line for students’ later access. This model is suited for website-based teaching where collaboration is done by online data sharing rather than real time interactions.

Alternatively virtual studio using video conferencing technology complements face-toface interaction through real time dialoguing with people. It provides the capacity to engage students in service-learning and real world problem-solving experience on UGA campus without having to travel long distance to meet with community partners. Students can use video conferencing to share their work-in-progress design ideas, receive real time feedback from community partners, and improve their design by comparing it against community’s specific needs and goals. It also allows to expand student-community engagement to a larger stakeholder group collaboration where students learn from various design dialogues from multiple stakeholder groups and related experts.

It is also noteworthy that virtual studio and design collaboration through video conferencing is an emerging professional trend in practice in the United States. Many landscape architects, planners, and government officials use the technology for international projects or simply working with clients, co-workers, and other professionals in different locations and time zones. Although the idea of virtual studio is not new to educators in the discipline of Landscape Architecture, video conferencing is a relatively new technology and has rarely been applied to service-learning studio instruction.

3 New Communities in Albany, Georgia

In addition to the service-learning experience, the students in this studio project, who were mostly white, had a valuable crosscultural learning opportunity by collaborating with a community organization representative of historically significant African American culture in the South. New Communities is an African American grassroots organization born out of the Civil Right Movements in 1965. Founding members, Charles Sherrod and Shirley Sherrod, established the organization based on a collective farm. For more than 40 years, the organization has advocated social justice and empowered poor farmers in Georgia through agribusiness, education, and social awareness. They are recognized as one of the original models for community land trust in the United States (Sherrod 2012).

In 2011, New Communities purchased a 1,638-acre property, which was a former plantation developed in 1851 by one of the largest slave holders in Georgia. Originally the plantation was called Cypress Pond, but they renamed it Resora after the four concepts that they deeply resonated with the place. Those were resilience, restoration, resource, and resonance (Perkins +Will 2014). The property nestles a wide variety of natural and historical resources that are significant both to the existing ecosystem and the Southern culture. While respecting the existing natural and cultural landscapes is a priority for New Communities, they envision the place to become an innovative agricultural education and community center and to serve as a model for sustainable rural economic development based on agribusiness and community empowerment.

To move forward with the vision, in 2013, New Communities worked with Perkins +Will to lay out the first strategic plan for the entire property. In response to the site’s unique landscape types and existing natural and cultural resources, Resora Master Plan proposed three character areas as a framework for initial planning: the Preserve, the Farm, and the Village (Fig. 1, 2, 3 and 4). The Preserve as a place for solitude experience andrecreation is proposed to preserve and utilize the existing pine forest, cypress tree-lined ponds, and various swampland wildlife species. The Farm as a place for agricultural production is located around the existing pecan and fruit orchards. Lastly, the Village as a cultural center of the property is proposed around the existing main house, historic mill structure, and cabins.

4 Project and studio instructional sequence

The scope of the project, Master Plan and Site Design for New Communities, entailed 1) conducting a site analysis with inventories of the environmental, economic, and social resources in the Village area outlined by the existing master plan framework, and 2) developing a detailed master plan with site designs for implementation. The final studio materials were delivered to New Communities in forms of a professional report (74 pages), posters, and student presentations.

The studio class met three times spending 8 hours per week. 13 students (5 graduate and 8 senior undergraduate students) participated in this project spending seven weeks to complete the project. 11 of them were familiar with service learning approach and had participated in 1 to 3 service learning landscape design projects in the past. To sustain continuous student-community engagement through the entire period, the project employed both face-to-face and virtual engagement venues. For the face-to-face engagement, a two-day field trip to the site was arranged at the beginning of the second week, and a student final presentation was scheduled at the end of the seventh week. (Fig. 5) The site visit started with meeting representatives from New Communities followed by a tour of the entire property on a hay ride pulled by a tractor truck. After the tour, the students were divided into three teams, and conducted an initial site analysis collecting site survey data in groups. On the second day, student teams developed an initial concept for design by collaborating with representatives from New Communities and local students from Albany Technical College and the Turner Job Corp Center. The collaborative student teams identified the site’s strengths and weaknesses based on the inventory data, presented their initial concepts and plan sat a community meeting, and participated in open discussion to receive feedback from New Communities and local residents.

After the field trip, the students came back to UGA campus and spent a week and half in studio developing an initial master plan using the information gathered from the field trip. To help the students refine and improve their design, virtual studio meetings with New Communities were arranged. The instructional format of a virtual studio meeting was similar to that of a design critique session where students present work-inprogress materials, answer any questions raised by reviewers, and receive critique. Blackboard Collaborate video conferencing software was used to facilitate virtual meetings, and it provided the level of engagement that can make people from different locations and time zones feel like they are in the same room via video conferencing.

Three virtual studio meetings in total were scheduled in the fourth and sixth weeks, and each session was three hours long. Other than the representatives from New Communities, two Landscape Architecture faculty members (Dr. Laura Lawson and Holly Nelson) and a graduate student (Han Yan) from Rutgers University participated in the virtual studio meetings. They were involved in the initial preparation of this service learning project, and were familiar with the project and site issues. In addition, a senior landscape designer (Jeong Yoon Park) from EDSA in Orlando, FL, participated in reviewing student designs through video conferencing, and offered the students valuable feedback from the professional practice point of view (Fig. 6).

5 Methods

To examine the role of video conferencing technology in service-learning studio instruction, this study evaluates educational benefits of the virtual studio component of the project in terms of enhancing community engagement in the process and providing the complete experience of design process characterized by imaging, representing, and testing activities (Zeisel 1984). A post-studio survey was conducted on 12 student participants in conjunction with participant observations on students’ class activities throughout the entire project period. Post-studio survey questionnaires specifically addressed how the virtual studio helped the students formulate new design ideas (imaging), communicate their ideas better both graphically and verbally (representing), and test or improve design ideas (testing)(Fig. 7).

6 Results and Discussion

The students responded positively to the general effectiveness of the virtual studio using video conferencing technology on enhancing overall service-learning experience and designprocess. On the scale of 5 (1 being not useful, 3 useful, and 5 very useful), the students rated 3.2 on average for the usefulness of the virtual studio meeting for understanding the community’s specific needs and goals. In terms of the usefulness of the virtual studio in reinforcing imaging, representing, and testing activities of design process, the responses were 3.6, 4.1, and 3.7 on average. The students found that online collaboration with the community partner through video conferencing more than useful for forming new ideas and concepts that informed their designs, and producing design to meet the community’s specific needs. Multiple virtual studio meetings, at which students had to show work-in-progress materials rather than a completed project, were also received very positively by the students as they helped improve the level of graphic communication for the project, understand the importance of effective communication skills, and clarify their concepts. They also found that the virtual studio meetings helped them step back with a critical eye examining their design on their own, or improve design by testing their tentative ideas against the feedback given by the reviewers.

In regards to the students’ written comments on the effectiveness of the virtual studio instruction, they appreciated “being able to connect with the leaders of community group”, “feedback from individuals outside of our studio”, “clarifying ideas with community clients”, “more discussions between students and community partners”, and“new approach to design review and critique ”. One of the notice able in-situ decision making and problem-solving methods in this project was dialogue. This was clearly observed from the students’ behaviors both during the regular studio time and virtual studio meetings. Over the course of the three virtual meetings, students’ focus shifted from perusing individual design ideas to understanding the community partner’s priorities related to design preference, interest, timeline, and resource. Students actively participated in inclass discussion or used the virtual studio meetings to fill in missing or misinterpreted parts of the information. This dialogic process helped the students see flaws or impractical ideas in their initial design, critique each other in design process, and ultimately redirect the project to fit better with the community’s needs.

Despite the students’ positive ratings and observations results, there were major technical and operational limitations that decreased the audio and visual quality of the virtual studio meetings. Many students commented on “difficulty to follow reviewers’ comments” from time to time and having to deal with “extended review time (class time) because of technical issues”.

From the lessons learned from trial and error, the audio-visual problem seemed to be influenced by the nature of video conferencing technology and classroom setting. First, it is important to understand that video conferencing is optimized for the experience of real time online collaboration with multiple people. In a way, dialoguing itself serves as a major way to share data and exchange information. From the data sharing point of view, video conferencing platform is less reliable than the virtual studio model that uses a physical website on line to store, download, and exchange course materials. Technical glitches like a delay in audio visual communication or information distortion can occur from various issues related to internet speed, network bandwidth capacity, the condition of an individual laptop, and the number of people participating in video conferencing.

Another factor that might have impacted the audio-visual problem in this project is the layout of the classroom that promoted student’s passive attention to the virtual studio meetings. The physical classroom where students met for the virtual meetings was equipped with a desktop computer, a projector screen in front of the room, and a speaker/microphone covering the entire space. The classroom setting works great for traditional class instruction centralized around a main desktop station for the instructor who gives a lecture in front of the classroom while students are sitting at the back listening. However, this particular classroom setting restricted both teambased class activities and individual student’s active participation in video conferencing. Alternatively, the decentralized classroom setting with a personal desktop approach for individual students or students teams, illustrated in the diagram below, may serve better to encourage students to participate more and alleviate the audio-visual problem (Fig. 8 and 9).

7 Conclusion

The showcase service learning project incorporated both face-to-face and virtual studentcommunity interactions to reinforce community engagement in design process and enhance students’ learning experience. The results from a post-studio survey and participant observations assured that the virtual studio meetings contributed to elevating overall service learning experienceand strengthening the complete experience of design process. This pilot study does not suggest that the virtual studio model using video conferencing can substitute face-to-face studentcommunity engagement in service-learning studio instruction. However, there is enough evidence that it can complement face-to-face engagement as its alternative online collaborative learning environment supports interactive and dialogic design process.

Specific educational benefits of the virtual studio instruction relevant to the pilot study are summarized below.

a. Reinforced service learning by enhancing community engagement in the process and helping the students understand the community’s specific needs and goals.

b. Provided the capacity to engage students in service-learning experience on UGA campus without having to travel long distance.

c. Enhanced experiential learning by exposing the students to multiple stakeholders and their design dialogues in multi-institutional and crosscultural settings.

d. Strengthened design thinking by reinforcing imaging, testing, and representing activities of design process.

e. Engaged students in problem solving and in-situ decision making by exposing them to the design process driven by dialogue and interaction.

f. Provided students a variety of learning opportunities to build team-based collaboration skills, professional leadership, and communication skills.

（References）：

[1]Bringle, Robert G. and Julie A. Hatcher. 1995. A Service-Learning Curriculum for Faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 2(1):112-122.

[2]Center for Community Design and Preservation (CCDP). 2015. Public Service and Outreach at the College of Environment and Design, [Report submitted by Jennifer Lewis, Public Service Projects Coordinator, College of Environment and Design].

[3]Lawson, Laura. 2005. Dialogue through Design: The East St. Louis Neighborhood Design Workshop and South End Neighborhood Plan. Landscape Journal 24(2): 157-171.

[4]Li, Ming-Han and M.D. Murphy. 2004. Assessing the effect of supplemental web-based learning in two landscape construction courses. Landscape Review 9(1): 157-161.

[5]Hou, Jeffrey, Isami Kinoshita, and Sawako Ono. 2005. Design Collaboration in the Space of Cross-cultural Flows. Landscape Journal 24(2): 125-139.

[6]Sherrod, Shirley. 2012. The Courage to Hope: How I Stood Up to the Politics of Fear. New York: ATRIA Books.

[7]Perkins+Will. 2014. RESORA: the Master Plan [Professional document prepared by Perkins +Will for New Communities]

[8]Zeisel, John. 1984. Inquiry by Design: Tools for Environment-behavior Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Service-learning through Virtual Studio

This pilot study examines the role of video conferencing technology in service-learning studio instruction and its benefits associated with enhancing community engagement in the process and students’ learning experience using a showcase service-learning studio project taught in fall 2014 in the College of Environment and Design at the University Georgia. The project was a cross-cultural and multi-institutional where UGA students collaborated with an African American community organization, New Communities, and local students for an agricultural education center in Albany, GA. Based on a post-survey and participant observation, this paper evaluates the effectiveness of the technology and virtual studio instruction in two areas: 1) increasing community engagement throughout the entire process, and 2) providing the students the complete experience of design-imaging, representing, and testing (Zeisel 1984)- in which the students not only formulate and communicate design ideas to the community partner but also engage in interactive testing of their design through online collaboration through video conferencing.

Service-learning Studio Pedagogy; Video Conferencing; Multi-institutional and Cross-cultural Collaboration

TU986

A

1673-1530（2016）12-0095-11

10.14085/j.fjyl.2016.10.0095.11

2016-07-30

Sungkyung Lee是佐治亞大學(xué)（University Georgia）環(huán)境與設(shè)計學(xué)院（College of Environment and Design）的副教授。她的學(xué)術(shù)研究側(cè)重于強大的社會經(jīng)濟/文化變遷之間的關(guān)系（如現(xiàn)代化、商業(yè)化、戰(zhàn)爭和殖民主義）和城市景觀。她最感興趣的是環(huán)境如何通過破壞和重建影響自然環(huán)境、改變?nèi)藗兊恼J(rèn)知和場所的用途并創(chuàng)建一個不同的人與環(huán)境關(guān)系。她采用了結(jié)合景觀研究、社會科學(xué)和人文領(lǐng)域的多學(xué)科研究方法。Author:

Sungkyung Lee is an Associate Professor in the College of Environment and Design at the University Georgia. Her scholarship focuses on the relationship between powerful socio-economic/cultural changes (i.e. modernization, commercialization, war, and colonialism) and urban landscapes. Specifically, she is interested in how such contexts influence the physical environment through destruction and redevelopment, change people’s perception and use of the place, and create a different human-environment relationship. She employs a multidisciplinary research approach that combines landscape research with social science and humanity fields.譯者簡介：

蔣雨婷/1990 年生/ 女/ 浙江人/ 北京林業(yè)大學(xué)園林學(xué)院風(fēng)景園林學(xué)碩士

吳曉彤/1993年生/女/內(nèi)蒙古人/北京林業(yè)大學(xué)園林學(xué)院風(fēng)景園林學(xué)碩士生Translator:

Jiang Yu-ting, who was born in 1990, got Master of Science in Landscape Architecture, and she graduated from school of landscape architecture, Beijing Forestry University. Wu Xiao-tong, who was born in 1993, is a postgraduate student of landscape architecture at school of landscape architecture, Beijing Forestry University.

修回日期：2016-10-05