To understand a historical object you first have to try rebuilding it.
At a glance
The programme turns the class into an investigation team that gathers information, analyses an object or a technology from the past, designs its reconstruction, builds a physical version and gradually brings it into the digital, while augmented and virtual reality are used to observe, contextualise and present the artefacts rather than as a closing effect.
The programme does not begin by putting a headset in front of the students but with something they do not yet know well enough, because an artefact, a technology, a structure or an episode becomes the object of an investigation and the question is how to rebuild it well enough to be able to explain how it worked and where it belonged.
Each group gathers information and has to work out which sources are genuinely useful for building, comparing images, looking closely at details and identifying what is needed to move from research to a design decision.
This phase lets history enter the project before the digital does, and stops technology becoming a shortcut that replaces observation.
The object is broken down into parts and the group reasons about shapes, proportions and measurements, because the drawing is not only a way of representing something but the place where they decide how to turn what they understood into an object that can actually be built.
A model is then prepared from simple materials, and building immediately exposes missing information and problems that theoretical research could hide, because a shape has to stand up, a part has to have a size and two elements have to genuinely connect.
The physical model becomes the reference for the digital one and students have to recognise shapes, place them, change their dimensions and combine them, so the move between physical and digital stops 3D modelling from becoming an exercise in using an interface.
The model can then be placed or observed in an augmented or virtual environment, and the programme can end with an interactive presentation in which students guide their classmates through historical content recreated digitally.
This is the reason AR and VR enter the project, and it matters more than the fact that a headset was used during the course.
My job is not to build the object in the group's place but to prepare the problem, help break it down, introduce the tools when they become necessary and support the students through revision, and when a technical difficulty threatens to absorb all the time I reduce the complexity without taking the design decision away from the group.
The programme leaves selected sources, drawings and blueprints, physical models, 3D files, any AR or VR environments and a presentation or narration of the work, and those artefacts are also the best documentation of the programme itself.
The available sources do not contain enough data to speak of measured improvements, while what can be observed is the ability to connect a source to a design decision, the move from drawing to physical and digital form, the revision of measurements and proportions and the ability to explain the decisions taken to the group.
These adaptations are design proposals and not activities already delivered. The programme can spread the roles further across research, drawing, building, 3D and storytelling, reduce the complexity of the software, use ready-made models as a base, or replace the headset with an on-screen exploration when the context calls for it.
Tell me the historical period, the group and the equipment available.
