通过虚拟工作室进行服务性学习

作者：李晟京（韩国）

翻译：蒋雨婷

校对：吴晓彤

Text: Sungkyung Lee

Translator: JIANG Yu-ting

Proofreading: WU Xiao-tong

通过虚拟工作室进行服务性学习

作者：李晟京（韩国）

翻译：蒋雨婷

校对：吴晓彤

Text: Sungkyung Lee

Translator: JIANG Yu-ting

Proofreading: WU Xiao-tong

这篇研究探讨了视频会议技术在服务性学习工作室教学中的作用，以及在这一过程中如何加强社区参与的好处，同时探讨了佐治亚大学（University Georgia，简称UGA）环境和设计学院（College of Environment and Design）2014秋季学年的服务学习工作室项目中学生的学习体验。该项目是跨文化和多组织的活动，佐治亚大学学生与非洲裔美国人社区组织——新社区（New Communities）及佐治亚州奥尔巴尼的一个农业教育中心的当地学生合作。本文基于后期调查和参与观察，评估了技术和虚拟工作室教学在以下两个领域的成效：1）增加整个过程中的社区参与；2）为学生提供设计成图、表现和检验的完整经验（Zeisel，1984）。在此过程中，学生不仅与社区伙伴一同制定、交流设计理念，也通过视频会议的在线合作参与他们的设计交互测试。

服务性学习工作室教学；视频会议；多机构和跨文化合作

1 简介

服务性学习是一种以学生和社区共同受益的方式来整合公共服务和社区服务的教学策略。在佐治亚大学，服务性学习作为重要的教育机会被重视，它使得学生可以将学科知识应用到社会实际中，并将服务经验转化为因情况而变的学习经验[1]。将公共服务及拓展与设计教学相联系是环境与设计学院（College of Environment and Design，简称CED）的4个战略计划之一。为了实现这一目标，CED为学生提供了各种各样的服务学习机会，包括社区专家研讨会（专家研讨会议连接程序）、使用从当地社区回收再生的建筑材料来建造的设计—建造项目（材料再利用计划），以及文化资源调查项目（Findit项目）。这些程序由社区设计及保护中心（Center for CommunityDesign & Preservation，简称CCDP）实施，引导学生到实际生活中去，在与当地社区、同事及未来雇主的工作过程中获取一手学习经验。1997年到2015年间，CCDP完成了91个社区设计专家研讨会、48个材料再利用设计—建造项目，以及60个文化资源调查项目，为7 283名学生提供了与各地方政府和国家机关、非营利组织、社会机构以及缺少服务的社区进行项目合作的机会[2]。

教师和职员对于优化CED的服务性学习也做出了许多贡献。每年教师领导的个人工作室项目和CED广泛的设计专家研讨会总体规划项目都有关于当地的历史性城市中心、廊道、自然区、生态恢复点和居民区。自1990年以来，有400多个团队受到了CED专业设计的服务。仅在2014学年，风景园林硕士学位和学士学位教学体系中就有19门课程有社区参与及其延伸，其中12个被列为S级，是由大学认定的官方服务性学习课程。62项CED教师/职员牵头的服务性学习项目已经完成（CCNP 2015）。本文展示了2014年秋季完成的教师牵头的服务性学习项目之一，着重强调其使用视频会议虚拟工作室的服务性学习教学方法。

2 为什么服务性学习需要虚拟工作室？

作为一个服务性学习项目“新社区的总体规划和场地设计“（Master Plan and Site Design for New Communities）是设计工作室课程的土地4095可持续（LAND 4095 Sustainability）的课题。这个高级本科工作室课程采用服务性学习和公民参与作为学生的职业和个人发展手段。这个课程中的Studio项目旨在为学生提供一个机会，去从社区层面理解复杂的可持续性问题，并通过创新景观设计解决社区的具体挑战。因此，可持续发展的范围不仅限于资源自给的相关概念和技能，而且扩展到设计场地的效能、社会影响及其周围环境、人文景观和公民参与。该工作室课程采用了多种学生—社区参与方式，比如参加社区会议、采访居民，以及在各种实践项目中与社区合作。这些参与经历通常与多层次的现场分析匹配，让学生采用不同的方法（即调查、地图分析，行为观察）在不同的尺度（即场地、社区、城市、区域）中探索场地背景。这类课堂活动旨在帮助学生更好地了解场地特质、社区的具体需要和潜力。

服务性学习工作室通过参与过程和直接的学生—社团互动促进探究性学习。当然，我们期待在整个项目期间保持持续而有意义的互动参与。然而，确保全程持续参与并不容易，它涉及到各种限制，比如师资力量和时间、学生的出勤率、社区的情况、长途旅行的距离或其他原因。出于这个原因，学生与社区的互动往往安排在项目的开头或结尾，而中间的阶段则像传统工作室那样，学生以师徒的方式依靠导师提供的资料进行设计[3]。为了解决教学问题，这项服务性学习项目通过虚拟会议技术，促进了雅典市佐治亚大学CED学生和佐治亚州奥尔巴尼200英里（约321.87km）外的的社区伙伴之间的设计合作。

虚拟教室/工作室已经被美国的主要景观设计项目采用。已证实这种教学方法在课程资料的无障碍传递方面是卓有成效的[4]，它为学生提供了跨文化的学习机会[5]。然而，工作室教学技术通常依赖一个指定的课程网站，或侧重于存储在线课程材料的能力，以便学生日后访问。这种模式适合以网站为基础的教学，其合作是通过网上数据共享而不是实时交互完成。

虚拟工作室利用视频会议技术通过实时交流提供了面对面的互动，学生不必长途跋涉去跟社区伙伴见面就可以参与服务性学习，获得解决现实世界问题的经验。学生可以利用视频会议来分享他们的设计思路，获得社区伙伴的实时反馈，并通过与社区特定需求和目标的比较来提高自己的设计。虚拟工作室还允许将学生—社区合作扩大为更大的共同利益合作团队，从多种多样的利益共同体和有关专家的设计对话中进行学习。

同样值得注意的是，利用视频会议的虚拟工作室和合作设计是美国一种新兴的专业趋势。许多景观设计师、规划师和政府官员利用该技术为国际项目工作，或只是简单的同客户、同事和其他不同的地点和时区的专业人员一起工作。尽管虚拟工作室的理念对风景园林学科的教育工作者来说已经不新鲜了，但视频会议是一个相对较新的技术，且很少应用到服务性学习中。

3 佐治亚州奥尔巴尼的“新社区”

除了服务性学习经历，这个工作室项目中的学生——多数是白人——通过与代表南方非裔美国人文化的社区组织合作，获得了一个有价值的跨文化学习机会。新社区是一个于1965年诞生于民事权利运动的美国黑人基层组织。创始成员查尔斯•谢罗德（Charles Sherrod）和雪莉•谢罗德（Shirley Sherrod）建立了一个基于集体农庄的组织。40多年的时间里，该组织一直提倡社会正义，并通过农业经营、教育和社会意识帮助佐治亚州的贫困农民。他们是公认的美国社区土地信托的原型之一[6]。

2011年，新社区购买了1 638英亩(约662.88hm2）土地，这是由格鲁吉亚最大的奴隶主之一于1851年开发的老种植园。种植园本来叫赛普拉斯池塘（Cypress Pond），但由于场所深深共鸣的4个概念而更名为Resora。这4个概念是弹性、恢复、资源和共鸣[7]。该地块掩映在各种各样的自然景色和历史资源中，它们对现存的生态系统和南方文化都有重要意义。新社区在优先尊重现有自然和文化景观的同时，也有希望成为创新的农业教育和社区中心，为基于农业经济和社区营造的可持续农村经济发展提供典范。

为了这一愿景， 2013年，新社区与帕金斯威尔（Perkins +Will）合作，奠定了整个地块的第一个战略计划。根据该场地独特的景观类型和现有的自然文化资源，Resora总体规划提出将3个特色区域作为最初规划框架：保护区、农场和村庄（图1-4）。保护区作为独立的体验娱乐的区域，提出保护和利用现有松树林、柏树成荫的池塘和各种各样的沼泽地野生动物。农场作为农业生产的地块被现存的山核桃和果园围绕。最后，社区作为文化中心被现有的主要房屋、历史磨坊结构和小木屋围绕。

5 项目和工作室的教学顺序

新社区总体规划和场地设计的范围，包括：1）利用由现有总体规划框架所列的环境、经济和社会资源的清单进行场地分析；2）开发现场设计实施的详细总体规划设计。最终的工作室成果以专业报告（74页）、海报和学生展示的形式交付新社区。

工作室每周花8小时碰3次面。 13名学生（5名研究生和8名高年级本科生）花费7周时间参与完成了这一项目。他们中的11人熟悉服务性学习方法，并在过去参加过1-3个服务性学习景观设计项目。为了在整个时期保持持续的学生—社区参与，项目采用面对面和虚拟场地参与两种形式。为了面对面参与，第2周的开始安排了为期2天的现场实地考察，学生最终展示安排在第7周结束（图5）。现场考察由会见新社区代表开始，随后是乘拖拉机干草车参观整个场地。参观结束后，学生分成3组，分组采集现场调研数据，进行初步场地分析。第2天，学生团队、新社区代表以及来自奥尔巴尼技术学院（Albany Technical College）和特纳工作公司中心（Turner Job Corp Center）的本地学生合作制定一个初步的设计概念。学生合作团队基于数据明确了场地的优势和劣势，在社区会议上展示了他们初步的概念和规划，参加公开讨论、听取新社区和当地居民的反馈意见。

实地考察后，学生回到UGA学校工作室用一个半星期的时间，利用实地考察收集的信息完成初步总体规划。为了帮助学生改进提高他们的设计，安排他们与新社区进行虚拟工作室会议。虚拟工作室会议的教学形式与设计批判会类似，学生展示工作进展中的材料，回答评审提出的任何问题并接受批判。黑板协作视频会议软件用于协助虚拟会议，提高了参与度，可以使不同地点和时区的人们感觉是在同一个房间进行视频会议。

总共3次虚拟工作室会议，安排在第4和第6周，每次会议是3小时。除了来自新社区的代表，还有罗格斯大学的两位景观设计教师（Laura Lawson博士和Holly Nelson）和一名研究生（Han Yan）参加了虚拟工作室会议。他们参与这项服务性学习项目的前期准备工作，并熟悉该项目和现场问题。此外，佛罗里达州奥兰多EDSA的资深景观设计师（Jeong Yoon Park）也通过视频会参与审查了学生设计，并从专业实践的角度为学生提供了宝贵的反馈意见（图6）。

6 方法

为了检验视频会议技术在服务性学习工作室教学中的作用，该研究评估了项目中加强社区参与方面的部分——虚拟演播室的教育效益，并提供了以成图、展示、检验活动为特点的设计过程的完整体验[8]。工作室教学之后，进行了一项关于12名学生参与者及整个项目期间学生课堂活动的参与性观察的调查。后期的问卷调查专门解决一些问题，如虚拟工作室如何帮助学生制定新的设计理念（成图）、更好的通过图形和语言表达他们的想法（展示），以及检验或改进设计理念（检验）(图7）。

7 结果和讨论

学生们积极表示，利用视频会议技术来全面提升服务性学习体验和设计过程的虚拟工作室具有普遍有效性。在5个等级中（1表示没有用，3表示有用，5表示非常有用），在了解社区具体需求和目标这一方面，学生们给虚拟工作室会议打的平均分为3.2；在加强设计过程的成图、展示和检验活动这方面，平均分是3.6、4.1和3.7。学生们发现，对于形成表达设计的新想法和新理念、创造满足社区具体需求的设计来说，通过视频会议与社区伙伴在线合作是非常有用的。在多样的虚拟工作室会议中，学生必须展示工作进展中的材料而不是一个完整项目。这种方式也很受学生的欢迎，因为这有助于他们改善项目的图像交流水平、理解有效沟通技巧的重要性，以及阐明其理念。他们也发现虚拟工作室会议能帮助他们退后一步，用批判的眼光审视他们自己的设计，或者通过评价者的反馈来检验他们的设想，以此改进设计。

至于学生对虚拟工作室教学有效性的书面意见，他们欣赏“能够与社区团体的领导人联系”、“我们工作室之外的个人反馈”、“向社区客户阐明理念”、“学生和社区伙伴之间更多的讨论”以及“设计评审和批判的新方法”。对话是这个项目中现场决策和解决问题的显著方法之一。无论是常规的工作室时间还是虚拟工作室会议，学生的行为都很明显的体现了这一点。3次虚拟会议的过程中，学生的重点从追求个性化的设计理念，转移到理解社区伙伴关于设计偏好、兴趣、时间安排和资源相关的优先级。学生积极参与课堂讨论或使用虚拟演播室会议补充遗漏或曲解的部分信息。这个对话过程帮助学生发现他们初步设计的破绽或不切实际之处，促使他们在设计过程中互相评价，最终引导项目更好地适应社区需要。

尽管有学生的评价结果和观察结果，仍然存在降低虚拟工作室会议音频和视觉质量的主要技术和操作上的限制。许多学生评论有时“很难跟上评论人的意见”，不得不应对“因技术问题而延长审查时间（上课时间）”。

从反复试验中吸取教训，视听问题似乎被视频会议技术和课堂情境的性质影响。首先，重要的是了解视频会议是对多人实时在线协作的优化体验。在某种程度上，对话本身就是数据共享和信息交换的主要方式。从数据共享的角度来看，视频会议平台比使用物理网站在线存储、下载、交换课程资料的虚拟工作室模型可靠性要低。由于与网速、网络带宽容量、个人笔记本电脑状况和参加视频会议的人数相关的各种问题，视听通讯延迟、信息失真这类技术故障常会发生。

教室布局是这个项目中另一个可能影响视听问题的因素，它促进学生对虚拟工作室会议的被动注意。学生们举行虚拟会议的现实课堂上配备了一个台式计算机、一个房间前的投影屏幕，以及覆盖整个空间的扬声器/麦克风。这种教室设置能满足传统的课堂教学，教师在教室前讲课的主讲桌为重点，而学生们坐在后面听。然而这个特殊的课堂环境既限制了以团队为基础的课堂活动，也限制了学生个体在视频会议的积极参与。此外，采用学生个体或学生团队个人桌面方式的分散式教室设置，可能更有助于鼓励学生的参与，并且缓解视听问题如下图所示（图8和 图9）。

8 结论

为加强设计过程中的社区参与、提高学生的学习体验，展示服务性学习项目包括面对面和虚拟学生—社区互动。工作室之后的调查结果以及参与观察确保了虚拟工作室会议有助于提升服务性学习的整体体验，加强设计过程的完整体验。这项初步研究并没有表明使用视频会议的虚拟工作室模式可以代替服务性学习工作室教学中面对面的学生—社区参与。然而，有足够的证据证明其可以补充面对面的参与，因为其可供选择的在线合作学习环境支持互动式和对话式的设计过程。

与初步研究相关的虚拟工作室教学的具体教育效益总结如下：

（1）通过在这一过程中加强社区参与、帮助学生了解社会的具体需求和目标来强化服务性学习。

（2）有能力在UGA校园为学生提供参与服务性学习体验，而不必长途跋涉。

（3）通过让学生与多个利益相关方接触、在多机构跨文化背景下交流设计来增强体验式学习。

（4）通过强化成图、检验和设计过程的展示来增强设计思维。

（5）通过对话和互动驱动的设计过程使学生参与问题解决和现场决策。

（6）为学生提供各种学习机会，提高他们的团队协作能力、专业领导能力和沟通能力。

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是佐治亚大学（University Georgia）环境与设计学院（College of Environment and Design）的副教授。她的学术研究侧重于强大的社会经济/文化变迁之间的关系（如现代化、商业化、战争和殖民主义）和城市景观。她最感兴趣的是环境如何通过破坏和重建影响自然环境、改变人们的认知和场所的用途并创建一个不同的人与环境关系。她采用了结合景观研究、社会科学和人文领域的多学科研究方法。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.译者简介：

蒋雨婷/1990 年生/ 女/ 浙江人/ 北京林业大学园林学院风景园林学硕士

吴晓彤/1993年生/女/内蒙古人/北京林业大学园林学院风景园林学硕士生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