Abstract
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.
References
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.
Acknowledgements
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Distribution of participant-students by term and course names
Semester | Course name | Number of participant-students |
|---|---|---|
2017–18 spring semester | EUT 419E Industrial Design Studio IV | 11 |
2018–19 fall semester | EUT 319E Industrial Design Studio II | 6 |
2018–19 spring semester | EUT 220E Industrial Design Studio I | 17 |
2018–19 spring semester | EUT 320E Industrial Design Studio III / EUT 419E Industrial Design Studio IV | 18 |
2019–20 fall semester | TES 211E Project III (Section 1) | 25 |
2019–20 fall semester | TES 211E Project III (Section 2) | 12 |
Appendix 2: Design studio course evaluation template (Gelmez, 2020)
Topic | Sentences starters with | Objectives |
|---|---|---|
Communication | 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 |
Overall | 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
Dimensions | Aspects | Codes mentioned | Percentage | Exemplary phrases | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Assessment | Benefit of assessment | 5 | 6.0 | Helpful assessment | |
Clarity of assessment | 19 | 22.6 | Unclear assessment | ||
Emotional impact of assessment | 10 | 11.9 | Motivating assessment | ||
fairness of Assessment | 22 | 26.2 | Transparent assessment | ||
Quality of assessment | 11 | 13.1 | Fast assessment | ||
Type of assessment | 17 | 20.2 | Criterion-based assessment | ||
Total | 84 | 100% | |||
Brief | Benefit of brief | 29 | 16.9 | Informative brief | |
Clarity of brief | 65 | 37.8 | Confusing brief | ||
Emotional impact of brief | 22 | 12.8 | Intimidating brief | ||
Quality of brief | 36 | 20.9 | Comprehensive brief | ||
Type of brief | 20 | 11.6 | Ordinary brief | ||
Total | 172 | 100% | |||
Jury | Benefit of jury | 24 | 18.0 | Instructive jury | |
Cognitive process of jury | 6 | 4.5 | Mind-opening jury | ||
Emotional impact of jury | 21 | 15.8 | Stressful jury | ||
Progress of jury | 26 | 19.5 | Intensive jury | ||
Quality of jury | 27 | 20.3 | Sufficient jury | ||
Type of jury | 29 | 21.8 | Process-based jury | ||
Total | 133 | 100% | |||
Critics | Benefit of critics | 91 | 44.4 | Productive critics | |
Clarity of critics | 10 | 4.9 | Unclear critics | ||
Cognitive process of critics | 19 | 9.3 | Thought-provoking critics | ||
Emotional impact of critics | 16 | 7.8 | Upsetting critics | ||
Progress of critics | 17 | 8.3 | Short critics | ||
Quality of critics | 28 | 13.7 | Consistent critics | ||
Type of critics | 24 | 11.7 | Non-interactive critics | ||
Total | 205 | 100% | |||
Design studio | Spatial conditions of studio | 176 | 67.7 | Technologically insufficient studio | |
Studying conditions of studio | 62 | 23.8 | Crowded studio | ||
Quality of studio | 22 | 8.5 | Inappropriate studio | ||
Total | 260 | 100% | |||
Term | Benefit of term | 46 | 28.2 | Productive term | |
Emotional impact of term | 48 | 29.4 | Calm term | ||
Progress of term | 43 | 26.4 | Prolonging term | ||
Quality of term | 26 | 16.0 | Interesting term | ||
Total | 163 | 100% | |||
Dialogue | With teacher | Benefit of dialogue with teacher | 18 | 18.0% | Fruitful dialogue |
Clarity of dialogue with teacher | 3 | 3.0% | Comprehensible dialogue | ||
Emotional impact of dialogue with teacher | 17 | 17.0% | Enjoyable dialogue | ||
Progress of dialogue with teacher | 3 | 3.0% | Time-limiting dialogue | ||
Quality of dialogue with teacher | 54 | 54.0% | Reciprocal dialogue | ||
Type of dialogue with teacher | 5 | 5.0% | Professional dialogue | ||
Total | 100 | 100% | |||
With classmates | Benefit of dialogue with classmates | 19 | 20.4% | Supporting dialogue | |
Emotional impact of dialogue with classmates | 6 | 6.5% | Entertaining dialogue | ||
Interactivity of dialogue with classmates | 28 | 30.1% | Easy to establish dialogue | ||
Quality of dialogue with classmates | 40 | 43.0% | Strong dialogue | ||
Total | 93 | 100% | |||
Process | Beginning of the design project | Benefit of beginning | 11 | 8.7% | Productive beginning of project |
Cognitive process of beginning | 9 | 7.1% | Complicating beginning of project | ||
Emotional impact of beginning | 53 | 41.7% | Stressful beginning of project | ||
Progress of beginning | 41 | 32.3% | Lasting beginning of project | ||
Quality of beginning | 13 | 10.2% | Uncertain beginning of project | ||
Total | 127 | 100% | |||
During the design process | Benefit of project process | 31 | 10.1% | Unproductive process | |
Cognitive process of project process | 58 | 18.9% | Confusing process | ||
Emotional impact of project process | 82 | 26.7% | Exciting process | ||
Progress of project process | 122 | 39.7% | Deadlocked process | ||
Quality of project process | 14 | 4.6% | Unusual process | ||
Total | 307 | 100% | |||
End of the design project | Benefit of end of project | 25 | 20.8% | Eye-opening end of project | |
Cognitive process of end of project | 14 | 11.7% | Mind-opening end of project | ||
Emotional impact of end of project | 41 | 34.2% | Unsatisfactory end of project | ||
Progress of end of project | 29 | 24.2% | Tiring end of project | ||
Quality of end of project | 11 | 9.2% | Different end of project | ||
Total | 120 | 100% | |||
Relation | Between the first and second design projects | (Non)connection | 10 | 15.6% | – |
Quality of relation | 54 | 84.4% | Strong relation | ||
Total | 64 | 100% | |||
With other courses | (Non)connection | 2 | 5.0% | – | |
Quality of relation | 38 | 95.0% | Transferable relation | ||
Total | 40 | 100% |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
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
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09775-w