“A live project comprises the negotiation of a brief, timescale, budget and product between an educational organisation and an external collaborator for their mutual benefit. The project must be structured to ensure that students gain learning that is relevant to their educational development.” say Anderson and Priest (2020). They elaborate, that they ‘tried to make this definition representative of the common factors’, as well as ‘to be as inclusive as possible’, of scope (wealth, variations, and diverse motivations for) of live project practice that they have observed. Live Projects are “pedagogic means to extend the institutional confines of the design studio”, and may also be referred to as ‘Design Build Projects’, ‘Live Build Projects’, ‘Real Projects’ and ‘Service Learning’. Similarly, the University of Sheffield School of Architecture (2020) state that ”Live Projects set real constraints, responding to budget, brief and time. In each project students and clients work together to define the project and develop a brief”.
Tezcan, Durakovic, Smith, Lloyd, and D'arcy (2020: 522) report on re-framing the scholarly discussions about the ‘design studio’, and the nuances of design studio teaching strategies and pedagogy. They observe that “the live project model is commonly adopted by universities globally as a means of offering architecture students the opportunity for workplace practice-learning”, and argue “live projects form an embedded, scaffolded core subject in design studio education, rather than discreet, standalone offerings”. They indicate that work-integrated learning (WIL) “is an umbrella term for the integration of academic theory with workplace application”, and state that scaffolded WIL “involves a sequence of WIL experiences that structure core disciplinary subjects within a program curriculum”. Scaffolding is not merely a rickety structure, but a well-designed curriculum to move students toward career readiness and professional practice. The live project model resembles both the workplace and professional practice; and “it promotes deep, transformational and authentic learning” (Tezcan et al., 2020: 524).
Tezcan et al. (2020), however, do express concern about (among others) the financial constraints pertaining live projects, in particular the potential accumulation of costs incurred by both students and universities, which may result in depletion of resources. Adaptation of the South African sector education and training authority (SETA) funding disbursement is recommended. Pursuing of live projects for reconstruction and development should further be pursued.
About Live Projects. 2020 The University of Sheffield School of Architecture. Electronically accessible from http://www.liveprojects.org/about/2/
Anderson, J & Priest, C. 2020. About (web page), Live Projects Network. Electronically accessible from https://liveprojectsnetwork.org/about/
Tezcan, N.; Durakovic, I.; Smith, C.; Lloyd, E. & D'arcy, S. 2020. Scaffolded, simulated work-integrated learning in design education: Beyond the live project. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 21(5), 521-529. Electronically accessible from https://www.ijwil.org/files/IJWIL_21_5_521_529.pdf
Comments