A report by Tay Kheng Soon
LINKS
Day 1, Thursday, 31 August 2000
7 Thai 4th and 5th year Architecture students, 2nd year Malaysian student with 16, 2nd year Architecture students from National University of Singapore comprised the group. There were also 2 Thai lecturers, Anuscha and Preecha and two spore lecturers, Ong Boon Lay and John Fung, 4 final year NUS architecture students, Lim Ching Tung, Mark Low, Koo Kim Leng and Ng Say Peng and myself, all acting as facilitators. The camp warden was Sutari Supardi, a Bird expert from the Singapore Nature Society. He provided a continuous commentary on birds and nature and astronomy as well as conducted nature walks, bird watching and the climb up Gunong Panti, the nearby mountain, all in the most humourous of ways!
5 projects were selected by me. They were to be three tree houses, a fishing platform and hut and a floating house on the river. The design brief was very slightly suggested for it was the intention for the student groups to discover the design parameters and evolve the design independently. Reasons for site selection were explained. Originally there was to be some hides in the forest to observe animals at some distance from the camp but due recent tiger and elephant activity, it was decided to build nearer to the camp instead. All students were told that they would have to sleep in the houses on the last night, i.e., 5th Sept. Students self-selected which projects they wanted to work on and they formed their own groups. The building materials and tools provided were explained. Tools were distributed. Students started to sketch out the designs.
Day 2, Friday, 1 September 2000
Students continued to sketch and discuss. I suggested that the fishing-house group of students build their house in the lily pond near the camp but the group decided against the suggested site because it was too near he toilet block and the incinerator. They thought of building next to the river but after studying the tidal situation, which has a rise and fall of 2.5 meters, decided to build in an adjacent pond where there are two small islands they could connect with their platform and hut.
The three tree-house groups decided to pool together and worked together to design a connecting bridge from the kitchen block to a cluster of trees about 30 meters away. The kitchen hut served as a social and logistic centre. It was a natural location to start the construction. Since there were three groups combined into one there were l5 students altogether. It was inherently a difficult situation because it was a mixed group and they were new to each other. Leadership and work-roles had to be evolved. One difficulty was that the Thais were from the upper years and the Malaysian and Singaporeans from the lower years. Most of the Singaporean Students were also female and tended to be less assertive. All these differences had to be overcome somehow. That was part of the learning experience. The social and cultural reality was complex and the students did not know immediately how to handle it. Thus, many were just hanging around as leadership and roles were naturally forming. There was a tendency to hold back and not assert. Tools were strewed about. The work was done haphazardly.
The problematic group was the group of 15. The other groups worked smoothly. Students began to sketch different types of support structures to build a walkway in order to reach the cluster of trees before the tree houses could be even designed and then built. The two Thai students took the lead to start installing trial the support stands for the walkway to the trees. There were 4 types of support structures designed. No one wanted to conclude which was more practical and no one knew how to install them. This was a crisis because without decision, the work real could not start and there was limited time. The facilitators had to step in at this point to initiate an open discussion and then suggested applying quantitative analysis to help decide which design used fewer materials. The result was the selection of two types for experimentation. The delicacy of the situation was that there was something at stake. The older students were the Thais and the younger the Singaporeans and the sole Malaysian who were more articulate in English. What was at stake was pride. Some how this has to be worked out if the project was to be successful. Two teams set to work. The simpler of the two designs was installed after much effort. The other type of support took twice as long to fabricate due to angled notching. But still, the students decided to install both types. Later that night, during the debriefing after dinner the, now apparent leader of the Thai Students, was asked whether to use one type or both. I could see that he was being very diplomatic when he justified the use of both for the handrail possibility of the Singapore type, but quickly added that his type was easier to make.
The Malaysian student said on reflection of the day's activity that students did not do enough site study and site investigation to inform their design. Added to this, it was clear to all of us that the first day was also learning how to use tools. My observation is that, in handling tools, the working posture was generally poor. The full force of the body was not used because of poor positioning of the body. Thus, extra effort was employed by the arm and fore arm. The shoulder and the back and trunk did not come into play. The body movements at this stage of the camp of the Singapore students was languid, not decisive or firm like the Thais. The body movements of the Thai students were more decisive especially the boys.
Day 3,
Saturday, 2 September 2000 With very little prodding the teams set out to work immediately after breakfast. The test today was how the large team would organise the division of labour for the work. It was remarkable. Once the design and construction method for the walkway was resolved the night before, the evolution of job allocation and roles came naturally. The two Thais remained at the front pioneering the way through the swamp bushes. Installing the supports The Malaysian and a Singapore girl continued with the job of making struts to stiffen the excessive deflection of the walkway planks. The others formed teams to fabricate the structures and struts. Interestingly, no type “B” struts were made. The logic of minimum effort decisively prevailed over diplomatic necessity! Quietly the matter of ownership of the rejected design was laid to rest by the pragmatics of easier construction. There was a discussion within the floating-house group on the design of the super-structure above the float structure. There was a myth of diagonal bracing to be overcome. Diagonals were sketched out as though they will automatically stiffen the super structure. The group was stuck. The design of the superstructure came to a halt. Only at that point was it appropriate to suggest a solution. Without the crisis, premature suggestion would have robbed the students of the struggle to find a solution by themselves. I suggested the analogy of a table as a conceptual model for the super structure. Now they understood what they had to do! Still one student wanted to place some unnecessary diagonals! Diagonals were used symbolically as structural strengthening even when it was superfluous. The tree house team had arrived at the foot of the main tree in the clump by 12.00 noon and on discussion with some of the students, it was agreed that it was no longer practical to build three separate tree houses. Given the time and materials constraint, it would be better to combine efforts and build one large tree house instead. The aim was still to be able to spend the last night sleeping in the house. This would save effort and materials and most important energy. By now, it became all too obvious to all the students that simple detailing was preferable and that ease of fabrication and installation paramount. I think that the natural division of labour and roles in the group, which had evolved up to this moment, will ensure success. This is what everyone wanted. This is what pulled the disparate group together despite occasional tensions. Success is most important in the learning process. Exercises selected should have clearly demonstrable success criteria. In this case, being able to sleep in the tree house finally was the incontrovertible measure of success. All the tutors and facilitators strove very hard not to lead by instruction but by interjecting, only at critical moments, when they saw the group drifting confusedly or listlessly. A suggestion at such crucial moments when progress of the project was at risk was essential. Suggestions should not be premature because they will dilute the learning situation for the students. 3.40pm. New crisis! The assertive Thai student rejected the other student's idea of the tree house structure saying it is impossible to place columns on the ground around the tree and that the load should be supported by the tree instead. I had already clearly stated that this is not permitted due to possible damage to the tree. This was a confrontation. The situation was awkward. The Thai student had by now established his legitimate leadership role, as he was the leader in the installing of the supports for the walkway. His continuous banter and humour also cloaked him with a superior air. The NUS students did not want to challenge him. In response to me, he said commented, “what is the challenge for the other students” if they build on the ground and not on the tree? Accordingly, the 3 Thai students had as a group within the 15 proposed then proposed a low structure around the tree to challenge the no load on tree requirement. I did not want to take on the sarcastic challenge and let it drift. Finally, it was decided that “tree house can be defined as house within the tree”, and not necessarily on the tree. The crisis was temporarily averted and it seems that practicality resolved the differences. Furthermore, there is a real fear of building high because of the difficulty and the danger although the height of the independent structure will probably be at a max of 5m. The regular square or triangular structure would have to avoid the tree roots spread thickly around the tree and therefore the design may have to be rather organic in shape and the structure for the accommodation will evolve accordingly. 15 people will have to be accommodated on several platforms. It is nearly 6.00pm. now and the students are drifting back to the cookhouse very tired. Further examination of the root-area around the tree suggested that it is not possible to plant any posts close to the tree. The tree house will have to be independent of the tree. The issue is going to be how then is it to be a tree house? This issue will be the next crisis. Meanwhile a group of 4 students led by the Malaysian is steadily following up with struts to the walkway planks. It is now 6.45pm. The fishing house group is in high spirits as their project is taking shape well and they took a group photo. Tonight, some have suggested playing the gamelan on the finished platform and watch the moon! Day 4,
Sunday, 3 September 2000 There seems to be an incipient tussle between the Thai students and the 2nd year NUS students mostly girls. It is an experiment in task resolution, overcoming status positions. The tentative decision was to build an independent structure rather than one surrounding the tree because of the roots. 10.16am. The floating house group hit a crisis! They realised that the structure was too heavy for the floats! They requested for more barrels. I refused. How to reduce weight? John suggested tensile Polyethylene sheet roof below the frame and poly sidewalls and the use of trellises above to provide shade. There was palpable excitement! They saw the light! The recalcitrant Thai student offers me chocolate. Peace offering! Sign that there is resolution. Lunch, all are very tired. 1.50 it rained. Siesta! Work started again at 2.15pm. The fishing hut team hit a snag. The effort to put in the rest of the roof timbers seems daunting and they are very tired and hot because the site they chose was very exposed, as there are no nearby trees to provide shade. I suggested a this moment that they can consider using wires as tensile structure for bracing and support on which to tape the poly sheets on. There was great relief to be seen on their faces. The tree house team is in full steam. The legs of the structure are going in and the planks are being delivered to the site by human chain. The floating house team is back at work. They are finishing the floor planks. Why? I had tried to intervene by asking if the buoyancy can support the load, they decided to test the floating structure with drums first before deciding to put on the superstructure. As there is an existing fishing platform nearby using the same drums but the students seemed not to have observed the buoyancy implications. Strangely, they doggedly went on with their original idea without pausing to review their design in the light of observable information. Furthermore, there seems not to have been any serious study of the existing floating platform. Thus it seems that there is a reluctance to look beyond the target problem and to observe the surroundings to learn from it. This is also the case with the other groups to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps, prevents scanning the surroundings for clues. Although success is important to reinforce the fragile confidence, it may be necessary to accept failure too. At this point, I was getting rather despondent fearing for the success of the students. These notes reflect the mood I was in at this writing. If this was to be a thorough learning process and the derivation of new confidence, is this possible if failure is so imminent? Is the ego too fragile to recover if I don not make a concession? Should I allow another 2 buoyancy drums? To issue two more drums is to condone the error? The girl Thai student leader insisted belligerently to test the superstructure fitted onto the raft before admitting failure. This was a tense moment. Everybody knew the consequence of failure. A despondent mood will settle over the entire camp if the test failed! The floating house with superstructure was heaved into the water at the ramp. Everyone helped in the effort. It actually floated! It turned out that the assertive Thai girl-student was right after all! The raft floated with the superstructure but weight had to be watched carefully from now on. The screw cocks of the barrels had not been checked in the anxiety to launch the raft so one of the cocks leaked and has to be repaired tomorrow. The crisis was averted. It will be important to build on the new confidence gained but temper with caution. The lesson learnt will never be forgotten. I too learnt a lesson, to have more faith! Tonight the dinner was prepared by the Thai delegation and it was excellent. Significantly, the recalcitrant Thai student nudged me and asked smilingly whether it was good? I sincerely replied that it was excellent….. Another peace offering or something else? Day 5,
Monday, 4 September 2000 Today is going to be critical. 4 Thais are leaving for the Arcasia Jamboree in KL and the rest want to go to Singapore tomorrow. So the projects have to be completed today. The tree house is in crisis. It cannot be finished. 11.57am, the tree house group finished the second platform and are resting on the decks enjoying the breeze and dappled sunlight filtering through tree leaves above. Some measure of success! The floating house group is putting finishing touches to the poly roof. The fishing hut group is preparing to hoist the roof structure onto the posts, the final year helpers have raised their tree house structure reached by extending the walkway built last year, to the 3rd level but they are loading onto the tree. Not so good. Also the bindings do not have enough wedges to allow the tree fluids to flow. They might kill the tree. I hope not. It is left to be seen. The tree-house group are designing the roof. They are still doggedly following timber rafter on purlin design despite the fact that the roofing material is poly sheet, very light. I suggested considering wire rafters between the purlins and taping the sheet to the wires from below. There was a sullen silence from the Thai student and the NUS students remain quiet. This despite last night's revelry and bonding. They are still in thrall of the Thai student. They only began to discuss when the Thai students have gone away. The suggestion to use wire was to save labour and materials knowing that all students are very tired. Still, the uptake to new ideas was very slow. Yes, the difference in age and experience between the second year NUS students and the 4th and 5th year Thai students is a major factor; the response to labour saving ideas is indeed slow despite that it reached across the gap. One would have thought that this fact would facilitate the decision as it did before with the support design. Finally, the decision was to use wire structure. And this because time had run out. Day 6,
Tuesday, 5 September 2000 The fishing hut team is taking a rest. It consisted of three NUS students and 2 Thai students. This team seems to work trouble -free though somewhat sluggish and rigid.
Rigidity seems to prevail. Despite the challenge of a new situation, many of the concepts remained solidly unchanged despite labour and material shortages. Tiredness also did not seem to inspire efforts at labour saving. Though the situation seems clear. There is thus, apparently a great need in architecture education to have a grounding in actual designing and building the designs to experience the consequences of ideas against realities both human, constructional, environmental and material, especially in the early years. A delegation of NUS girls requested to go back home on Tuesday morning rather than afternoon, saying that they wanted to host the Thai students in Singapore to return the Thai hospitality. A good enough reason. Arrangements were made through phone calls to the bus drivers. Tiredness, homesickness and the lack of usual creature comforts are wearing on the students I think though I may be wrong. The students have a way of surprising us! All the projects are finished in a fashion. The floating house, the fishing house and the tree house lack walls or deep awnings to avoid splash. This is a surprising neglect given the exposure to the sun and rain in the tropics and what has been experienced in the long house and cookhouse. There seems to be great enthusiasm for cards, commemorative photo taking and a game I introduced using the phenomenon of a pendulum to indicate ender. Cooking by the Thais last night was a great success. All the Thais enthusiastically participated the cooking led by Anuska in. It was clear that all future camps must have a strong emphasis on games, cooking, music and sports besides designing and construction. Basic skills in handling tools, tying knots and understanding structure and construcion seems not greatly different between the higher year students and the lower year sthdents. It seems that personality combined with cultural difference is an impediment to be avoided. language communication difficulties exacerbates the problems specially since the teams were established according to task groups and not country groups. Tonight, if the weather improves and the camp fire gets going, maybe the mood will lift. All feel disappointed in the not too successful results. The Thais left the next morning for Singapore to tour the town and the NUS students went to climb Gunong Panti the nearby hill. I stayed behind to make repairs and recuperate from the exertions. My own despondent mood lifted when the projects were completed. I suggested lighting up the tree house with candles the night before. The 2 students who made the struts were given the honour. The effect of the lighting activity attracted all the others and they started to gravitate to the house and the photo taking rush started all over again. The mood was now buoyant. The other group had earlier launched the floating house and jumped into the croc-infested river in sheer relief and jubilance after successfully mooring the house. Lighting and photo taking attracted similar enthusiasm. The campfire thus took off in high spirits and it was the climax of the camp. Singing, joking, dancing humorous animated pieces by the Thais created a jolly mood. The Spore students were infected and not to be outdone, the usually reticent spore girl-students led an animated song/dance, something to behold! In the closing speeches the Thais expressed that it was a great learning and communicating experience. They learnt many things, which should make them better designers. The Spore students felt they experienced something they could not get in their usual life. The sole Malaysian expressed similar sentiments and recommended that this should be annual. That morning, the Thais set off for Singapore to be met by the girl NUS students in Spore. Now, the Spore and the Malaysian student set off for the mountain. This will be another experience they will never forget! I confirm, success is important in the learning experience, equally, enlightenment and enjoyment. Comradeship arising from shared tasks, humour, and timely interjection. These are the elements of educational situational creation.
