Abstract
Although virtually implicit since the advent of the internet, the dimension of online teaching has for the most of us long remained in the realms of the possible, failing to emerge as a practical alternative to real, face-to-face teaching. In the context of the abrupt changes occurred recently in our lives, the emergency linked to the pandemic has instead forced us to confront – under different conditions and with mixed outcomes – a completely new didactic dimension. In light of the exceptional circumstances we experienced on a global scale last spring for various weeks, it makes sense to expect that, just as it will be for many other aspects of our lives, our approach to teaching will not, after this test, simply go
back to what it was. With the present article it is our intention, by presenting two parallel experiences in this domain, to contribute to a reflection on the perspectives that the current state of affairs poses to design education. In doing so we shall not underestimate the emergence of sensitive issues associated with this phenomenon, such as those connected with the sphere of academic design teaching, the new
dimension of international competition among universities, and even of a ‘rediscovered’ role of our profession as a bonding agent for our society. The article focuses on the crucial topic of design education, on the grounds of those very particular experimental activities – the design practice and its teaching – that although not specific to design per se, are essential in defining the set of skills we usually associate with the cultural and professional sphere of our discipline. In this respect, the paper will primarily discuss how, in the impromptu situation in which we suddenly found ourselves in the early weeks of lockdown, we sought for ways to respond to the challenges posed by a rather unique
emergency by transforming the emerging challenges into opportunities. In this perspective, the contribution will discuss the objective of exploring ways to re-enact in the dimension of distant learning some key elements – such as the emotional participation, sense of belonging, tension and concentration span – that we have so far typically associated with face-to-face design experience, and that we have previously considered inseparable from any serious approach to design education. Far from pretending to reach a conclusive answer to problems facing us in the near future, this contribution moves from two experiences that in their differences, specificity and highly experimental character, complement each other, and have led to somewhat encouraging – and surprising –– results. In light of such development, the article aims to address some key topics for a debate to come.