This activity can be utilised as an introduction to a study course or as illustration of a built example of a sustainable design. In the former, the visit can be used to help set the agenda for the course and to promote interest in the subject. In the latter, it is useful to relate studio work to the three-dimensional realisation of drawings and strategies. The intention is that these realised strategies might both feed-back into student’s design work and assist in developing their critical faculties and architectural values.

The site visit has essentially three aspects to it: a preparation phase where aims and objectives of the project are clarified and student tasks allocated; the visit itself which is proactively led by the students with specific activities; lastly, concluded with a reflective discussion on the merits, the downsides and the learning opportunities of the project.

It covers the following pedagogical themes:

• Applied Learning

• Experiential learning

• Active Learning

And, in this example, engages in the following curriculum themes:

• Environment

• Materials

• Health and well-being

• Delight

With the specific aim of showing the built and functioning aspects of sustainability.

Prior to visit: preparation

• Lecturer-led talk giving overview of project aims, identification of architectural and environmental themes and putting the project into the course/ module context.

• issuing of an information pack including drawings and model photos etc

• students are divided into groups (potentially 5/6 students per group) to study specific themes identified.

• Themes addressed in this project include: 

  • cycles and systems: ventilation, daylight, material, food, energy, water

  • historical/ social context of Airfield Estate

  • architectural context and architectural themes

During the visit:

• Student-led walking tour - with lecturer overview

• Key themes are identified by student groups -

  • Site strategies - placing of buildings,

  • water cycle and architectural impact

  • food cycle and architectural impact

  • Building reuse and upgrade

  • Material stewardship and choice of materials – architectural impact

  • Designing to operate passively in section and plan – daylight and ventilation

  • Energy and architectural impact

• Recorded summaries of key issues and their built realisation in both sketch form and photographic.

• Tools required: sketch book and pencil, tape measure, camera/phone camera.

Post visit: a lecturer prompted discussion:

• student reflections on what worked and what has not in the project.

• what would be done differently today with regulation changes/ with greater ambition?

• subsequent/ proposed developments on/ adjacent to the site and impact on environmental and architectural themes

• what have students learnt from the visit.

The following techniques and tools are employed:

• Field Work

• Measuring / tools

• Drawing / Representation

The site visit is principally useful in terms of the self-directed learning it demands and in order that the visit actively engages the student it is important that there are both designated tasks and that the tour, in specific parts, is student led. In this regard student groups leading aspects of the tour must be well prepared and those who are listening should be engaged in drawn/photographed record of key issues involved.

The post visit evaluation is based on the demonstration of understanding of selected themes and a general project critique. A student-led presentation which can utilise power point or pin-up to help illustrate key findings and provoke discussion.

The following evaluation approaches are employed.

• Self-Directed

• Review / Crit

Reflection on learning outcomes for students:

• Potential studio application

• Understanding of built response to issues of sustainability

• Future design implications

Reflection on learning outcomes for educator.

• Importance of engaging students utilising study themes

• Timing of site visit: first year introduction (with limited student prior understanding of themes) or towards end of first semester with greater student engagement.

• Further discussion to be included and should be linked to studio design projects

• The site visit remains a useful teaching tool when placed within the semester (rather than at the beginning) as students are better able to lead the discussion through the themes and better equipped to understand the design strategies utilised. When used as an introductory course visit in first year, whilst have leaning benefits, the students tend to be less prepared and as a result less engaged.

• Airfield Estate has the benefit of being accessible to the public, consists of extensive gardens and different building uses and thus can accommodate a class of students over a 2-hour period. It also addresses a number of different environmental and architectural themes. Smaller built examples may not have the luxury of space or the same built variety and this may generate different parameters for the site visit or even multiple site visits.

• Establishing a demonstrable relationship of the site/ building visit to design studio work is useful so that the site visit can be perceived as sustainable design tool. Having said that, the site visit can exist as a didactic element in its own right, reinforcing taught course content.