Ways of Teaching—Simulating Real-Life Scenarios into Twenty-First Century Interior Design Education

Abstract

The dichotomy that exists between the sanitised atmosphere of campuses versus the messy reality of ‘sites’ often strikes interior design educators and practitioners alike as anomalous. It is imperative for students to better understand real-life scenarios, but the very nature of interior design sites means that it is difficult to recreate those conditions on campuses, and hence, the experience is incomplete. All design schools christen the core courses in which projects are undertaken by their students as ‘studios’ (similar to what design practices call themselves), but in their present form these do not allow for several crucial issues to be addressed. While certain other design disciplines find it easier to simulate these conditions as the nature of their creations is of a standalone variety, the proposed design of an interior space is a conception that is rooted and hence dependent on many external factors. Secondly, if an interior design proposal (or even a mock up) is to be created in three dimensions for the purposes of demonstration, it requires such a high investment of resources (time, labour and money) that it becomes unfeasible. This paper aims to investigate the ways in which students, through their undergraduate interior design education journey, can learn in a studio environment that accurately reflects the potential which an ongoing site holds, along with its intrinsic constraints and challenges. While the wind beneath the students’ wings is the educator who encourages them to dream, experiment, make mistakes and be free of the commercial shackles that often dictate design decisions on sites, in order to have a complete education and become well-rounded designers, today’s design studio must better equip them with a holistic outlook of the profession, which includes the ability to recognise and acknowledge practical considerations. This, in the long run, will only improve the employability and placement prospects of the graduates of tomorrow.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 22.1: Responses to the Survey Circulated Among Undergraduate Interior Design Students and Fresh Graduates (58 Responses)

• 1. You are a:

  • Incoming 3rd year student 27.6%

  • Incoming 4th year student 46.6%

  • Graduating student 20.7%

  • Working Professional 5.2%

• 2. As an intern, what were the tasks assigned to you (tick all that are applicable)

  • Drafting 89.7%

  • 3D Rendering 43.1%

  • Site visits (only with senior designer) 79.3%

  • Site supervision (independently) 43.1%

  • Follow up/Coordination (on phone or in person) with contractors, vendors, agencies 48.3%

  • Negotiations of budget, bargaining, tendering etc. 20.7%

  • Preparing timelines, BOQs, other documentation 36.2%

  • Meeting clients 29.3%

  • Allied tasks (Photography, Photocopying, Taking Messages) 46.6%

  • Sourcing materials 1.7%

  • Preparing mood boards 1.7%

• 3. Which of these tasks did you feel most unequipped for? (Tick all that are applicable)

  • Drafting & 3D Rendering 29.3%

  • Site visits & Site supervision 15.5%

  • Client Meetings & Follow up with team 15.5%

  • Costing, Negotiating, Tendering, Preparing Timelines and BOQs 38%

  • Allied Tasks (Plotting, Photocopying, Photography) 6.9%

  • Designing Related 3.4%

  • No particular problems 13.8%

• 4. Do you feel that a part time office work and part time course work (college studios, lectures) would work for you simultaneously?

  • Yes 44.8%

  • No 15.5%

  • Maybe 39.7%

• 5. What do you believe is the most important criteria for a project (you can select multiple criteria)

  • Completed within the pre-decided timeline 62.1%

  • Completed within the pre-decided budget 74.1%

  • Experimental/Innovative design 82.8%

  • Bespoke details (hand crafted, customised) 55.2%

  • Winning Awards/Getting Published 15.5%

  • Fees being paid on time by client to Designer/Contractors/Vendors 51.7%

  • Pleasing the user 1.7%

  • Keep creative juices flowing 1.7%

• 6. During your student years, which according to you enables you to learn more?

  • Visits to ongoing sites 15.5%

  • Visits to completed sites 0%

  • Both have Value 84.5%

• 7. Do you believe a 3D render is the most appropriate way of representing your design to the client/faculty?

  • Yes 43.1%

  • No 13.8%

  • Maybe 43.1%

• 8. In the near future, do you believe it would be feasible to use AR/VR to realistically simulate site conditions within the design studio on campus?

  • Yes 50%

  • No 3.4%

  • Maybe 46.6%

Appendix 22.2: Questionnaire Circulated Among Design Faculties (18 Respondents)

• 1. In the field of Interior Design, the gap between theory and practice is something which is often cited as an issue. This is currently resolved during the early working years, but how can institutes better prepare graduating students for the challenges and demands of the workplace?

• 2. In the present scenario, an intern rarely gets to fully participate in the design projects due to the discrepancies between the project timelines and internship period. Do you believe this leads to an incomplete experience? If yes, how can this be addressed?

• 3. Considering the way VR & AR technologies are advancing, how do you think they can play a role in simulating real life conditions for students in their design studios?

• 4. Studios are often kept free from commercial constraints, i.e. we do not ask students to design within a budget. Is this in your opinion a right approach or does this leave them under-equipped?

• 5. Within our design studios do you feel the need to simulate a more realistic working environment for the students? If yes, what are the methods can we use/should we use to bring about this change?

Names and Specialisations of Design Faculties from various institutes who responded to the Questionnaire

• 1. Mr. Gaurish Chandawarkar—Interior Design and Architecture

• 2. Ms. Divya Vijaychandran—Interior Design

• 3. Ms. Elizabeth Jerome—Interior Design

• 4. Ms. Neha Shah—Interior Design

• 5. Mr. Shreyas More—Interior Design

• 6. Mr. Dnyanesh Madgavkar—Interior Design and Architecture

• 7. Ms. Kimaya Keluskar—Architecture

• 8. Ms. Sangeetha Solanki—Architecture

• 9. Mr. Rajratna Jadhav—Architecture

• 10. Ms. Isha Patel—Communication Design

• 11. Ms. Prarthana Patil—Design Studies

• 12. Mr. Mohan Neelakanthan—Fashion Communication and Styling

• 13. Ms. Solange Suri—Fashion Design

• 14. Ms. Ritika Karnani—Product Design

• 15. Mr. Shamit Shrivastav—Product Design

• 16. Ms. Prachee Velankar—Landscape Design

• 17. Mr. Arjun Sharma—Landscape Design

• 18. Mr. Sandeep Menon—Landscape Design