Under this title, the statements by the members of the staff and the students of the Department of Industrial Product Design in ITU are discussed. On the basis of these statements, the issues and problems specific to the department are unfolded, which finally leads to the limitations in the reflective interactions and communications in the studio processes.
Interviews with Teachers
6 scheduled standardised interviews were held with 6 members of the staff in October 2011, between the second and the third cycles of the implementation, and were sound recorded. The academic titles of the interviewees varied in a range from professor to research assistant – including associate professor, assistant professor, and lecturer with PhD at the time of the interviews – all teaching in various studio courses in the department. In addition, all the interviewees except one, experienced the implementation process either as studio teachers or jury members, in varying degrees. The members of the staff and their statements are kept anonymous.
Table 5.2 : Roles of the interviewees in the studio courses where Facebook group implementations were conducted.
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 First Implementation / 2010-2011 Autumn 4th Year
Studio Teacher x
Jury Member x x
Second Implementation / 2010-2011 Spring 3rd Year
Studio Teacher x x x
Second Implementation / 2010-2011 Spring 4th Year
Studio Teacher x x
Jury Member x
Third Implementation / 2011-2012 Spring 3rd Year
Studio Teacher x x
Issues and Problems as Expressed by Teachers
There were 55 statements extracted from the interviews, which were found relevant to the processes of reflective interactions and communication. For each critique situation the number of statements it holds, and also, the percantage of those statements over the total number of statements are indicated. Also given is the number of interviewees mentioning any of the issue and/or problem, accompanied with the percentage to the total number of 6 interviewees.
Desk Critique Situation:
There were 13 (23.636% of the total 55) issues and problems extracted from the interview related to the reflective interactions and communication within the desk-critique situations. 4 of them were on one-to-one reflection, 1 was on many-to-one reflection, 2 were on many-to-many reflection, 3 were on teacher-to-teacher reflection, 2 were on student-to-student reflection and 1 was on process reflection.
One-to-One (T1 - S1) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) emphasised the (1) importance of face-to-face interaction with students adding that it cannot be replaced
with online platforms. 1 interviewee (16.667%) mentioned that s/he sometimes had to (2) end her/his desk critiques half way because there were too many students in the studio classes. In relation to the same issue, the same interviewee and another one (33.333%) said that they sometimes (3) could not give critique to all the students waiting for their critiques. 1 interviewee (16.667%) mentioned that (4) students do not take notes and work on the notes teachers write or draw down.
Many-to-One (T1, T2 - S1) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) mentioned that there was (5) a need for an individual record for each student, which showed the student’s critique history and was accessible to all teachers.
Many-to-Many (T1, T2 - S1, S2) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that (6) students did not have the habit of working in the studio in studio hours, that they waited to take critique, took their critique and left. The same interviewee (16.667%) also added that (7) students were only interested in their own projects, they took critique and left without listening to each other’s critiques.
Teacher-to-Teacher (T - T) Reflection: 2 interviewees (33.333%) mentioned that all (8) studio teachers give desk critiques separately and simultaneously so they cannot listen to and do not know about each other’s critiques. One of these interviewees and another one (33.333%) said that (9) teachers learned each other’s desk critiques by asking the students what critiques they received from other teachers. Both also (33.333%) added that (10) teachers talked about student projects over breaks, such as tea breaks.
Student-to-Student (S - S) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that (11) students do not give enough critiques to each other, while another (16.667%) mentioned that students do give enough critique to each other, however (12) they do in small groups and thus the exchanges are not accesible to other students and teachers.
Process (P) Reflection: 3 interviewees (50%) mentioned that they (13) could not keep regular records of their desk critiques (such as how many times they talked to which student, which students talked to them, which students did their homework, etc.).
Wall Critique Situation:
There were 5 (9.091% of the total 55) issues and problems extracted from the interview related to the reflective interactions and communication within the wall critique situations. 3 of them were on many-to-many reflection, 1 was on teacher-to-teacher reflection, 1 was on student-to-student reflection.
Many-to-Many (T1, T2 - S1, S2) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that when teachers show an example to all the students, they put it on a desk or on a wall, and start a collective discussion; though (14) only a certain number of students and teachers can get together around it, and the students behind lose interest and leave the group. Similarly, another interviewee (16.667%) mentioned the problem of (15) reviewing all students’ works collectively, which got chaotic and difficult given the high number of students. Finally, another interviewee (16.667%) said it was (16) difficult to keep all students interested in group critiques as they had short attention spans.
Teacher-to-Teacher (T - T) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that (17) teachers learned each other’s opinions or critiques during group critiques.
Student-to-Student (S - S) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) mentioned that (18) teachers tried to create group environments, where students could give critique to each other’s projects, but it did not work well.
Jury Critique Situation:
There were 13 (23.636% of the total 55) issues and problems extracted from the interview related to the reflective interactions and communication within the jury-critique situations. 4 were on many-to-many reflection, 2 were on teacher-to-teacher reflection and 7 were on process reflection.
Many-to-Many (T1, T2 - S1, S2) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) mentioned that the (19) juries were very chaotic, that everybody talked all together and interrupted each other, including the students’ presentations. 2 interviewees (33.333%) said that (20) students did not watch each other’s juries. Both (33.333%) added that (21) students did not listen to the critiques given to other students, didn’t learn from the critiques given to other students, while one of them (16.667%) mentioned that they (22) talked amongst themselves at the back during other students’ juries.
Teacher-to-Teacher (T - T) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that (23) teachers learned each other’s opinions or critiques in juries and while grading.
Another (16.667%) mentioned that (24) there were always different opinions among teachers but that was not reflected to students in juries.
Process (P) Reflection: 2 interviewees (33.333%) said that (25) teachers can not see the processes of student projects in juries. 1 of these interviewees (16.667%) added that (26) students did not give importance to project process because they thought they would be assessed on the basis of the final presentation. 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that some students did not keep organised sketchbooks which show their process properly, and that the (27) teachers could not establish such a discipline.
In relation to this issue, another interviewee (16.667%) mentioned that (28) teachers should emphasise the importance of sketchbooks more often. The same interviewee (16.667%) added that teachers sometimes got mistaken in juries, when they saw a good project without a process, they (29) didn’t question the absence of the process and evaluated the final product alone. 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that (30) sketchbooks did not include the critiques, thus did not show the train of thought the student had gone through. 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that in juries, s/he (31) could not give critiques and take notes at the same time, while another (16.667%) said that s/he could.
General Critique Situation:
There were 24 (43.636% of the total 55) issues and problems extracted from the interview related to the reflective interactions and communication within the general critique situations. 3 of them were on one-to-one reflection, 2 were on many-to-many reflection, 7 were on teacher-to-teacher reflection, 2 were on student-to-student reflection, 8 were on process reflection and 2 were on firm reflection.
One-to-One (T1 - S1) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) mentioned that some (32) students came to her/his office to take critique outside studio hours, adding that (33) students need the extra one-to-one time with teachers but teachers do not have the time within their work load. In addition, other 3 interviewees said that (50%) that (34) they sometimes gave critique to students via e-mail.
Many-to-Many (T1, T2 - S1, S2) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) talked about the (35) importance of consistency in teachers’ messages, which they communicate to
students about aspects of design process, mentioning some cases, where messages may lack such consistency. S/he (16.667%) added that (36) integrity amongst teachers is also important to get messages about aspect of design process across to students, adding that such integrity is sometimes missing among studio teachers.
Teacher-to-Teacher (T - T) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that studio teaching is mutual within the group of teachers giving the same studio course, with equal responsibility of preparing the course content, adding that (37) not all teachers take this mutual responsibility. Another interviewee (16.667%) mentioned that (38) communication among 6-7 teachers can be problematic, adding that the (39) preparation of project briefs by a group of teachers can be disorganised, causing problems in the finalisation and documentation of the final version. 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that the (40) assessment system of each teacher was different, adding that the (41) criteria for the assessment of projects were not always clear. Same interviewee (16.667%) said that when the assessment criteria were not clearly set, (42) different teachers could assess the same project according to different criteria, which then could (43) cause big gaps between the different grades given to that project.
Student-to-Student (S - S) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that because of the “strange” nature of design, (44) students both needed to see each others’ works and be inspired by each other, while at the same, they might need to keep their original ideas secret and hidden. Another interviewee (16.667%) mentioned that it was important that students saw each others’ process in case they are working on similar projects, (45) being aware of each other’s process might also work as copyright, authorship, signature.
Process (P) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that there were (46) too many students in studio classes for a healthy studio learning and teaching process, while another (16.667%) mentioned that (47) the acoustics of the studios is very bad. Same inteviewee added that it would be nice if students had their working desks, that (48) there were not enough desks in studios and students had to leave the studio clean after each studio class. 1 interview (16.667%) mentioned that there was (49) not an organised archive of past studio project briefs of the department, and that there should be one. 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that (50) sometimes students did not have the skills they were supposed to gain in the previous courses, and teachers could
not track down the reasons why. Another interviewee (16.667%) said that (51) assessment had to be fair and teachers had to have clear reasons when students questioned their grades. S/he added that (16.667%) (52) assessments had to be regular and fast throughout the semester, as learning their grades in time motivated the students. Finally, s/he said that (53) keeping records of students’ work processes was important in assessing their performances.
Firm (F) Reflection: 1 interviewee (16.667%) said that there (54) was not an organised archive of the connections and relationships of the department with firms, like past projects, competitions, donations, etc., and that there should be one.
Another interviewee (16.667%) mentioned that the (55) communication process between the firm representatives and the studio course and/or the students is not always organised and accessible to teachers.
In the interviews with the members of the staff, the most number of issues and problems were raised about the general critique situation with 24 out of 55 (43.636%) statements by the interviewees. The number of issues and problems communicated about the desk critique and the jury critique situations were equal with 13 out of 55 (23.636%) statements by the interviewees, for each. Only 5 out of 55 (9.091%) statements were made about the wall critique situations. Below is the table displaying the statements accompanied with the information of interviewees who made them, and the numerical details.
Table 5.3 : Statements by teachers during the interviews in ITU.
Situations /
Reflections Issues and Problems Expressed by Teachers I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 A. Desk Critique (13)
1. Face-to-face interaction is important and cannot be replaced with online platforms. RL
x 2. I sometimes have to end my desk critiques half
way because there are too many students in the studio classes. TL
x
3. Sometimes I can not give critique to all the
students who are waiting for my critique. TL x x
T1 - S1 (4)
4. Students do not take notes and they work on the
notes teachers write or draw down. AL, HL x
T1, T2 - S1 (1) 5. There is a need for an individual record for each student which shows the student’s critique history and is accessible to all teachers. TL, AL, RL
x
6. Students do not have the habit of working in the studio in studio hours. They wait to take critique, they take their critiques and leave. PL, RL, HL
x T1, T2 - S1, S2 (2)
7. Students are only interested in their own projects, they take critiques and leave without listening to each others’ critiques. RL, HL
x
8. Teachers give desk critiques separately and simultaneously so they can not listen to and do not know about each other’s critiques. TL, AL, RL, HL
x x
9. Teachers learn each other’s desk critiques by asking the students what critiques they received from other teachers. TL, AL, RL, HL
x x
T – T (3)
10. Teachers talk about student projects over breaks,
such as tea breaks. TL, RL x x
11. Students don’t give enough critiques to each
other’s projects. RL, HL x
S – S (2)
12. Students give enough critiques to each other’s projects but they do it in small groups and their exchange is not accessible to teachers and other students. RL, HL
x
P (1) 13. I can not keep regular records of my desk critiques (how many times I talked to which student, which students talked to me, which students did their homework, etc.). AL
x x x
B. Wall Critique (5)
14. When teachers show an example to all the students, they put it on a desk or on a wall, and start a collective discussion. Only a certain number of students and teachers can get together around it, and the students behind lose interest and leave the group.
PL
x
15. Reviewing all the student projects with all students and teachers is difficult because of the number of students. It creates chaos and is physically hard to get together in a contained way with that many people. PL
x T1, T2 - S1, S2 (3)
16. In group critiques, it is difficult to make students listen at the same time. They have short attention span. PL, HL
x
T – T (1) 17. Teachers learn each other’s opinions or critiques
during group critiques. TL x
S – S (1) 18. Teachers try to create group environments, where students can give critiques to each other’s projects, but it does not work well. HL
x
C. Jury Critique (13)
19. The juries are very chaotic. Everybody talks all together and interrupt each other. HL
x T1, T2 - S1, S2 (4)
20. Students don’t watch each other’s juries. HL x x
Table 5.3 (continued) : Statements by teachers during the interviews in ITU.
21. Students don’t listen to the critiques given to other students. They don’t learn from critiques given to other students. RL, HL
x x
22. Students talk amongst themselves at the back
during other students’ juries. RL, HL x
23. Teachers learn each other’s opinions and critiques
in juries and while grading. TL, RL, HL x T – T (2)
24. There is always different opinions among teachers but we do not reflect that to students in juries. RL, HL
x
25. In juries, teachers can not see the processes of
student projects. AL x x
26. Students do not give importance to project process because they think they will be assessed on the basis of the final presentation. AL, HL
x
27. Some students do not keep organised sketchbooks which show their process properly. Teachers can not establish such a discipline. AL, HL
x
28. Teachers should emphasise the importance of sketchbooks more often. HL
x 29. Teachers sometimes get mistaken, when they see a good project without a process. They don’t question the absence of the process and evaluate the final product alone. AL, HL
x
30. Sketchbooks do not include the critiques so you can not see the train of thought students go through.
AL
x P (7)
31. In juries, I can not give critique and take notes at the same time. TL, AL
x D. General Critique
(24)
32. Some students come to my office to take critique
outside studio hours. TL, PL x
33. Students need the extra one-to-one time with teachers but teachers do not have the time within their work load. TL, PL, HL
x T1 - S1 (3)
34. I sometimes give critique to students via email.
TL, PL
x x x
35. Consistency in teachers is important to get
messages on design process across to students. HL x T1, T2 - S1, S2 (2)
36. Integrity among teachers is important to get messages on design process across to students. HL
x 37. Studio teaching is mutual within the group of teachers giving the same studio course, with equal responsibility of preparing course content, but not all teachers take this mutual responsibility. TL, RL, HL
x
38. Communication among 6-7 teachers can be problematic. TL, AL, RL
x 39. Preparation of project briefs by a group of
teachers can be disorganised, causing problems in the finalisation and documentation of the brief. TL, AL, RL
x
40. The assessment system of each teacher is
different. RL, HL x
41. The criteria for the assessment of projects are not always clear. AL, RL HL
x 42. When the assessment criteria are not clearly set, different teachers can assess the same project according to different cirteria. AL, RL HL
x T – T (7)
43. When the same project is assessed by different teachers according to different criteria, it can cause big gaps between the different marks given to that project. AL, RL HL
x
Table 5.3 (continued) : Statements by teachers during the interviews in ITU.
S – S (2) 44. Because of the “strange” nature of design, students both need to see each others’ works and be inspired by each other, while at the same, they may need to keep their original ideas secret and hidden.
RL, HL
x
45. It is important that students see each others’
processes in case they work on similar projects, being aware of each other’s process may work as copyright, authorship, signature. AL, RL, HL
x
P (8) 46. There are too many students in studio classes for a healthy studio learning and teaching process. TL, PL
x
47. The acoustics of the studios is very bad. PL x 48. It would be nice if students had their working
desks, there are not enough desks in studios and students have to leave the studio clean after each studio class. PL
x
49. There is not an organised archive of past studio briefs of the department, there should be. AL, RL
x 50. Sometimes students do not have the skills they were supposed to gain in the previous courses, and teachers can not track down the reasons why. AL, RL
x
51. Assessments should be fair and teachers should have clear reasons when students question their grades. AL, HL
x
52. Assessments should be regular and fast throughout the semester, as learning their grades in time motivates the students. AL, HL
x
53. Keeping records of students’ work processes is important in assessing their performances. AL, HL x F (2) 54. There is not an organised archive of the not always organised and accessible to teachers. AL, RL, HL
x
Interviews with Students
4 scheduled standardised interviews were held with 4 students of the department in March and April 2012, during the 3rd cycle of the implementation, and were recorded in audio format. The interviewees were chosen by recommendations of the studio teachers and also by the frequency of their participation/use of the Facebook groups.
1 of the interviewee was a student from the 3rd year studio course of the 2nd cyle of the implementation “2010-2011 ITU EUT 311/312E/411 Design Studio” and 3 were from the 3rd year studio course of the 3rd cyle of the implementation “2011-2012 ITU EUT 311/312E/411 Design Studio”. The members of the staff and their statements are kept completely anonymous.
Issues and Problems as Expressed by Students
There were 99 statements extracted from the interviews with the students, which
There were 99 statements extracted from the interviews with the students, which