Evaluating a design studio course is a complex issue due to its practice-based, rich, and vague nature. This is an attempt to uncover this complex issue from students’ viewpoints as they are the owners of learning processes. Based on a student evaluation template, we particularly focused on nine dimensions of a design studio course, which are broad components students can evaluate, such as assessment, design brief, design jury, design critics, design studio, term, dialogue, process, and relation. This evaluation template, including reflective writings, offers us to find satisfying answers to how design students describe their learning experiences within a design studio course, and in what aspects, they describe these nine dimensions. Briefly, students preferred a wide variety of words or phrases while describing the dimensions of a design studio course in terms of twelve different aspects such as benefit, clarity, (non)connection, cognitive process, emotional impact, fairness, interactivity, progress, spatial and studying conditions, quality and type.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Afacan, Y. (2016). Exploring the effectiveness of blended learning in interior design education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(5), 508–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1015595
Alaoutinen, S., Heikkinen, K., & Porras, J. (2012). Experiences of learning styles in an intensive collaborative course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(1), 25–49.
Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153–166.
Alpak, E. M., Düzenli, T., & Mumcu, S. (2019). Raising awareness of seating furniture design in landscape architecture education: physical, activity-use and meaning dimensions. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30, 587–611.
Austerlitz, N., Iris Aravot, I., & Ben-Ze’ev, A. (2002). Emotional phenomena and the student–instructor relationships. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), 105–115.
Blanco, T., Casas, R., Manchado-Pérez, E., Asensio, A., & López-Pérez, J. M. (2017). From the islands of knowledge to a shared understanding: Interdisciplinarity and technology literacy for innovation in smart electronic product design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(2), 329–362.
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: Longmans Publishing.
Borg, E. (2012). Writing differently in art and design: Innovative approaches to writing tasks. In Writing in the disciplines: Building supportive cultures for student writing in UK Higher Education (pp. 1–15).
Bruton, D. (2011). Learning creativity and design for innovation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 321–333.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.
Cartier, P. (2011). Most valuable aspects of educational expectations of the students in design education. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2187–2191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.077
Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
Chen, W., & You, M. (2010). Student response to an Internet-mediated industrial design studio course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9068-2
Edström, K. (2008). Doing course evaluation as if learning matters most. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(2), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701805234
Emami, M. R., Bazzocchi, M. C., & Hakima, H. (2019). Engineering design pedagogy: A performance analysis. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30, 553–585.
Erikson, M., Erikson, M. G., & Punzi, E. (2016). Student responses to a reflexive course evaluation. Reflective Practice, 17(6), 663–675. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2016.1206877
Evans, L. (1998). Jack-of-all-trades, master of none? An examination of subject skills provision on technology (secondary) initial teacher education courses in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(1), 15–35.
Feeley, T. H. F. (2002). Evidence of halo effects in student evaluations of communication instruction. Communication Education, 51, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520216519
Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical Discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5–17.
Garcia, E., Brown, M., & Elbeltagi, I. (2012). The effectiveness of collective group blogs as a tool for reflection within experiential learning projects: A case study of simulated work based learning within higher education. In Proceedings of the International Technology, Education and Development (pp. 4676–4685).
Gelmez, K. (2016). Delving into curriculum content and pedagogy of the first-year industrial design studio through reflective writing: A study on cognitive and affective processes (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Istanbul: Istanbul Technical University.
Gelmez, K. (2020). In quest of a successful design studio course: A course evaluation template. In R. Almendra & J. Ferreira (Eds.), Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Research and Education in Design (REDES 2019) (pp. 110–118). Paper presented at Lisbon, 14 November 2019. London: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003046103
Gelmez, K., & Bagli, H. (2015). Learning from students: Reflections from personal magazines in basic design course. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 20(1), 29–37.
Gelmez, K., & Bagli, H. (2018). Tracing design students’ affective journeys through reflective writing. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), 1061–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9424-1
Gelmez, K., & Tüfek, T. E. (2022). Locating writing in design education as a pedagogical asset. The Design Journal, 25(4), 675–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2022.2088174
Gray, C. M. (2014). Locating the emerging design identity of students through visual and textual reflection. In Proceedings of DRS 2014: Design’s Big Debates (pp. 1135–1156).
Gulwadi, G. B. (2009). Using reflective journals in a sustainable design studio. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(2), 96–106.
Howell, B., Siebert, J., & Hill, M. (2019). New uses of Instagram in design history education. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on engineering and product design education, University of Strathclyde.
Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., & Kwan, K. P. (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000009294
Kurt, M., & Kurt, S. (2017). Improving design understandings and skills through enhanced metacognition: Reflective design journals. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 36(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12094
Lattuca, L., & Domagal-Goldman, J. (2007). Using qualitative methods to assess teaching effectiveness. New Directions for Institutional Research, 136, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.233
Lauche, K., Bohemia, E., Wilson, C., Langeveld, L., Connor, C., Badke-Schaub, P., & Titley, W. (2007). Distributed design studio-evaluation of three-way collaboration. In DS 43: Proceedings of E&PDE 2007, the 9th international conference on engineering and product design education.
Liebenberg, L., & Mathews, E. H. (2012). Integrating innovation skills in an introductory engineering design-build course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(1), 93–113.
Liem, A. (2008). Using pro-active evaluation methods to improve course evaluation in design education. In DS 46: Proceedings of E&PDE 2008, the 10th international conference on engineering and product design education.
Marshalsey, L., & Sclater, M. (2018). Critical perspectives of technology-enhanced learning in relation to specialist Communication Design studio education within the UK and Australia. Research in Comparative and International Education, 13(1), 92–116.
McCallum, L. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of course evaluation data and its use in the tenure decision. Research in Higher Education, 21(2), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00975102
McKeachie, W. J. (1979). Student ratings of faculty: A reprise. Academe, 65, 384–397.
Murray, H. G., Rushton, P. R., & Paunonen, S. V. (1990). Teacher personality traits and student instructional ratings in six types of university courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 250–261.
Nemorin, S. (2017). The frustrations of digital fabrication: An auto/ethnographic exploration of ‘3D Making’ in school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 517–535.
Ochsner, J. K. (2000). Behind the mask: A psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(4), 194–206.
Oxman, R. (1999). Educating the designerly thinker. Design Studies, 20(2), 105–122.
Patrick, C. L. (2011). Student evaluations of teaching: Effects of the Big Five personality traits, grades and the validity hypothesis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903308258
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage.
Platt, M. (1993). What student evaluations teach. Perspectives on Political Science, 22(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.1993.9944516
Santhanam, E., & Hicks, O. (2001). Disciplinary, gender and course year influences on student perceptions of teaching: Explorations and implications. Teaching in Higher Education, 7, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120100364
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications.
Schön, D. (1982). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Shreeve, A. (2015). Signature pedagogies in design. In M. Tovey (Ed.), Design pedagogy: Developments in art and design education (pp. 83–94). Surrey: Gower Publishing Limited.
Souleles, N. (2012). An action research project on the use of Facebook in an undergraduate visual communication study unit. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 11(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.11.2.127_1
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870
Stark, P. B., & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. ScienceOpen. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1
Svinicki, M. D. (2001). Encouraging your students to give feedback. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2001(87), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.24
Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2016). Reflection and professional identity development in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9380-1
Youssef, B. B., & Berry, B. (2012). Learning to think spatially in an undergraduate interdisciplinary computational design context: A case study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(4), 541–564.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Sage University Paper.
This study (Project ID: 41620) was supported by Scientific Research Projects Department of Istanbul Technical University. We would like to thank students who participated in our study voluntarily. We would like to extend our gratitude to Özge Çelikoğlu and Miray Boğa for their valuable contributions.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1: Distribution of participant-students by term and course names
Number of participant-students
2017–18 spring semester
EUT 419E Industrial Design Studio IV
2018–19 fall semester
EUT 319E Industrial Design Studio II
2018–19 spring semester
EUT 220E Industrial Design Studio I
2018–19 spring semester
EUT 320E Industrial Design Studio III / EUT 419E Industrial Design Studio IV
2019–20 fall semester
TES 211E Project III (Section 1)
2019–20 fall semester
TES 211E Project III (Section 2)
Appendix 2: Design studio course evaluation template (Gelmez, 2020)
Sentences starters with
My dialogue with the teacher(s)…
The design critiques in the class…
The design juries…
My dialogue with my classmates…
The studio environment…
The assessment (grading) of the projects…
To get feedback on communication dimension
To see effect of physical environment
To get insights about specific actions such as design critiques, design juries and grading
Content and process
The brief of the first project…
In the beginning of the first project…
During the first project…
At the end of the first project…
The brief of the second project…
In the beginning of the second project…
During the second project…
At the end of the second project…
The relationship between the first project and the second project…
To get feedback on course content and process
To find connections between design projects
To make comparisons within the term
To get specific insights on project topics and briefs
To get clues on design project process
The relationship between this course and the other courses in the department…
When I evaluated this semester in general…
Beside this, I would like to say…
To grasp an overall evaluation
To give students an opportunity to say something they want
Appendix 3: Dimensions and aspects
Benefit of assessment
Clarity of assessment
Emotional impact of assessment
fairness of Assessment
Quality of assessment
Type of assessment
Benefit of brief
Clarity of brief
Emotional impact of brief
Quality of brief
Type of brief
Benefit of jury
Cognitive process of jury
Emotional impact of jury
Progress of jury
Quality of jury
Type of jury
Benefit of critics
Clarity of critics
Cognitive process of critics
Emotional impact of critics
Progress of critics
Quality of critics
Type of critics
Spatial conditions of studio
Technologically insufficient studio
Studying conditions of studio
Quality of studio
Benefit of term
Emotional impact of term
Progress of term
Quality of term
Benefit of dialogue with teacher
Clarity of dialogue with teacher
Emotional impact of dialogue with teacher
Progress of dialogue with teacher
Quality of dialogue with teacher
Type of dialogue with teacher
Benefit of dialogue with classmates
Emotional impact of dialogue with classmates
Interactivity of dialogue with classmates
Easy to establish dialogue
Quality of dialogue with classmates
Beginning of the design project
Benefit of beginning
Productive beginning of project
Cognitive process of beginning
Complicating beginning of project
Emotional impact of beginning
Stressful beginning of project
Progress of beginning
Lasting beginning of project
Quality of beginning
Uncertain beginning of project
During the design process
Benefit of project process
Cognitive process of project process
Emotional impact of project process
Progress of project process
Quality of project process
End of the design project
Benefit of end of project
Eye-opening end of project
Cognitive process of end of project
Mind-opening end of project
Emotional impact of end of project
Unsatisfactory end of project
Progress of end of project
Tiring end of project
Quality of end of project
Different end of project
Between the first and second design projects
Quality of relation
With other courses
Quality of relation
About this article
Cite this article
Gelmez, K., Efilti, P. & Yilmaz, O. “Well, a tough question. Congratulations:” How and in what aspects do design students evaluate a design studio course?. Int J Technol Des Educ 33, 1585–1606 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09775-w