Las consecuencias accesorias

The second cycle of the implementation was conducted in the Spring semester of 2010-2011 Academic year, simultaneously, in the 3^rd and 4^th year design studio courses in Department of Industrial Product Design in ITU; and in one of the vertical project studio courses in the Department of Industrial Design in MSUFA. The main intention in the second cycle was to understand how the Facebook groups would be used, as a supplement to the processes of reflective interactions and communications, in design studio courses with different tendencies, traditions, and structures: (a) the design studio courses which are located in higher educational institutions of different origins; i.e. a university based on technical education and another on artistic education; (b) the design studio courses which have diferent structures structures, i.e.

horizontal and vertical; (c) the design studio courses which have different routines, i.e. meeting twice every week and meeting only for juries. The start of the second cycle of the implementation was based on the data gathered in the first cycle, as listed above. An individual secret Facebook group was initiated for each studio course. The Facebook groups were used throughout the complete semester in all courses, parallel to the studio processes. “2010-2011 ITU EUT 311/312E/411 Design Studio” was the group used in the 3^rd year studio course EUT 311/312E411 Industrial Design Studio in ITU. The Facebook group “ITU EUT 492 Design Studio” was used in the 4^th year EUT 492 Graduation Project design studio course in ITU. In MSUFA, the teacher and the students of a typical vertical project studio course used the group called “MSGSU EUT A Z Turan Design Studio”. There are three major differences between these three studios. First difference is based on the origins and tendencies of the institutions and departments. ITU, as explained in the previous section, is a

technical university. The university, and also the Faculty of Architecture and the department itself have a strong tendency to use digital technologies and online environments in the educational processes. As a natural extension of this general attitude, the staff members and also the students of the department use digital and online media in all departmental affairs. MSUFA, on the other hand, is an higher educational institution with strong artistic roots. The university and the department use digital and online media in official processes. However, they prefer face-to-face interaction. The department has an established system of executing its administrative and, especially, educational affairs offline. Some of teachers and students in the department seem to be sceptical about using digital and online media in educational processes. In the second cycle of the implementation, these differences in the institution- and department- levels were expected to create differences in how the Facebook group were going to be used by teachers and students of the studio courses in either universities (Heiberger and Harper, 2008). In other words, a more intense use, by both teachers and students, was expected to be observed in the studio courses in ITU, than in the studios in MSUFA. The second difference is based on the studio systems of the two institutions. The studio system in ITU is horizontal. The same group of students enter the department together from the first semester, they study all semesters together as a class, and they graduate together. The studios are held as class-based courses, which are all taken by groups of 30-40 students, who share the same class throughout their education. Thus, in studio courses, the social environment is constituted of students, who know each other well, and who share the same class and studios all through their education. Each semester, a group of 5-6 studio teachers are assigned to each studio course, and they all share the responsibilities of the studio course. As explained in the previous section, there are two critique systems in studio courses, the class system and the group system. In both cases, the high number of teachers tends to shift the focus from any single teacher, and seems to create a multi-directional network of students and teachers within the studio environment. In MSUFA, the department holds a vertical studio course system. In the vertical system, students, when entering the department, get clustered as semester groups, and are distributed to different studio courses, each semester. The studio classes, i.e. project groups, are taken by 12-15 students of various semesters and led by one teacher, who sometimes is accompanied by an

rd th

semesters) and come together – more or less – randomly. Such random groups of students from different semester levels is an enriching experience for students, as they can meet different students each semester, who have different levels of experience and points of view. Though, it may have a negative effect on the social environment, where students are not bonded enough as a group. In addition, the project groups are teacher-centered, similar to the atelier tradition of Ecole Beaux Arts, a structure that seems to create a one-directional social network of relations.

The difference in the social structures of the two studio systems is reflected in the physical settings of the studio classrooms, too. In ITU, there are separate drawing desks where students and teachers are expected to get together and work in individual groups. In MSUFA, the whole project group get together around a table, and exchange ideas on design projects. As discussed previously, students both need to share their ideas on design projects within a social envirionment of the studio, but also feel the need to hide their original ideas from each other (Craig and Zimring, 2000). In an environment where students know and trust each other, they would tend to exchange ideas more freely with each other (Heiberger and Harper, 2008). In addition, in a social environment, where ideas are shared within a multi-directional social environment, students would be encouraged to talk about their ideas. As a result of these differences in the two different studio structures, it is expected that the students in MSUFA can be more reserved in sharing their ideas and projects with each other, than the students in ITU. A third difference between the three studios is the routines of the courses. Teachers and students of the 3^rd year design studio course in ITU and the vertical project group in MSUFA meet twice a week, regularly. The frequent routines of these studios aim at creating a dynamic and stimulating environment, where teachers and students work together throughout the semester.

The 4^th year studio in ITU, on the other hand, does not have weekly studio classes.

Teachers and students meet only in juries, and students work individually, with the partner firmswhich are involved in the graduation studios in the department. The aim for this routine is to leave the students on their own in their projects, to experience a quasi-professional design project process before graduating. As discussed earlier, the routines in the offline social environments are observed to be reflected in online social environments (boyd and Ellison, 2008; Heiberger and Harper, 2008). Thus, these two different routines are expected to be reflected in the use of the Facebook

groups. In other words, the 4^th year studio course can be less active or the activities can be less frequent than the other two studios.

Three methods of data collection were used in the second cycle. The uses of the groups were automatically recorded in the group pages, which were content analysed. In addition, teachers and students of all 3 courses were asked to answer 3 sets of studio-specific questionnaires about the specific design studio courses and the uses of the Facebook groups, in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end of the semester. Members of the staff in both departments were asked to answer department-specific questionnaires at the end of the semester, about the general structure and critique dynamics specific to the design studio courses in their departments. Finally, interviews were held with the members of the staff and some of the students in ITU, and with the members of the staff in MSUFA. The studio-specific questionnaires were conducted with teachers and students of all the implementation studios, in order to understand: (a) the critique dynamics in each individual studio course; (b) personal expectations, opinions and suggestions of teachers and students in different studio courses; (c) how and if these dynamics and people’s opinions changed throughout the semester. Teachers and students of each studio course answered three sets of questionnaires throughout the semester to observe the changes in the answers. The questionnaires were very similar in structure and content both for teachers and students in all three studios, and were modified in certain details, where the questions had to be specified for teachers or students, or for different studios. All questionnaires consisted of three main parts. The first part focused on the critique dynamics in each studio course. The aim of this part was to get a general understanding of the way critique exchanges took place in the studio courses in each department, from the multiple points of view of teachers and students. The findings are used throughout the thesis, where the current dynamics and mechanisms of reflective interactions and communications in the implementation sites are discussed. The second part addressed both the intentions and uses of the Facebook groups and also opinions and suggestions about the group. In the first section of this part, teachers and students were given a list of six possible intentions of using the Facebook group in their studio class. They were asked to choose as many of the given intentions as they wished, and they could also add any other intentions that they could think of. The aim of this question was to find out in what

ways teachers and students expected the Facebook group to be a supplement or of use. The same list was given in all three sets of questionnaires throughout the semester, with the purpose of observing the change in the opinions of teachers and students. The six intentions listed in the question are given below. Finally, as the last section of this part of the questionnaires, which were given in the middle and the end of the semesters, teachers and students were asked for their suggestions, comments and opinions on using such a platform parallel to the studio processes. The aim of these questions was to gain insight to what teachers and students thought about the use of the Facebook group in their studio courses, and also, how their opinions changed throughout the implementation. The answers to this part of the questionnaires are discussed in the next chapter. In addition, department-specific questionnaires were conducted, in the end of the semester, with some members of the staff in both ITU and MSUFA in order to find out: (a) the dynamics in terms of the critique exchanges in the studio courses in each department; (b) the Internet use as part of these dynamics, in the studio courses in the implementation departments. 9 staff members in ITU and 5 staff members in MSUFA filled in the department-specific questionnaires. The findings are discussed in the sections, where the critique dynamics and the Internet use in the studio courses in each department are discussed.

After the second cycle, and before the third one, during the Autumn semester of the 2011-2012 Academic year, interviews were held with the staff members and students in ITU, and the staff members in MSUFA. The aim was to find out: (a) the processes of the reflective interactions and communications in the studio courses; (b) issues and problems in terms of the reflective interactions and communications, specific to the studio courses in each department. The content and findings of these interviews are analysed and discussed in depth, in the next section of this chapter. The results of the second cycle of the implementation are analysed on the basis of the findings of the interviews.