Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-plnhv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-08-21T16:17:50.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overcoming Pedagogical Challenges in Product Design Education during the Pandemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

U. Thakker  and
S. Shrivastav
U. Thakker*
Affiliation:
Atlas Skilltech University, ISDI School of Design and Innovation, India
S. Shrivastav
Affiliation:
Atlas Skilltech University, ISDI School of Design and Innovation, India
*
urvi.d.t@gmail.com

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The education sector got severely impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. In the beginning, remote learning posed challenges to teachers and students. However, many new pedagogical experiments demonstrated the potential to continue even in the post-Covid world. This study explains the pedagogical change in product design education from a traditional studio-based model to a virtual environment, without compromising the learning outcomes. The paper also describes the learning experiences of the students and measures the effectiveness of virtual education through qualitative and quantitative studies.

Keywords

design educationproduct designcase studydesign studiovirtual learning

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 2393 - 2402
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2022.

References

Alers, S., Hu, J., 2009. AdMoVeo: A Robotic Platform for Teaching Creative Programming to Designers, in: Chang, M., Kuo, R., Kinshuk, Chen, G.-D., Hirose, M. (Eds.), Learning by Playing. Game-Based Education System Design and Development, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 410–421. 10.1007/978-3-642-03364-3_49Google Scholar
Alnusairat, S., Al Maani, D., Al-Jokhadar, A., 2020. Architecture students’ satisfaction with and perceptions of online design studios during COVID-19 lockdown: the case of Jordan universities. ARCH 15, 219–236. 10.1108/ARCH-09-2020-0195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becerra, Z.M., Fereydooni, N., Kun, A.L., McKerral, A., Riener, A., Schartmuller, C., Walker, B.N., Wintersberger, P., Kun, A.L., 2021. Interactive Workshops in a Pandemic: The Real Benefits of Virtual Spaces. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 20, 35–39. 10.1109/MPRV.2020.3044072Google Scholar
Bodnenko, D.M., Kuchakovska, H.A., Proshkin, V.V. and Lytvyn, O.S., 2020, May. Using a virtual digital board to organize student's cooperative learning. In AREdu (pp. 357–368).Google Scholar
Bernardo, N., Duarte, E., 2020. Design, education, and the online tech-pandemic. SDRJ 13, 577–585. 10.4013/sdrj.2020.133.22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camba, J.D., Kimbrough, M., Kwon, E., 2018. Conceptual product design in digital and traditional sketching environments: a comparative exploratory study. JDR 16, 131. 10.1504/JDR.2018.092810Google Scholar
Casakin, H. and Davidovitch, N., 2013. Learning spaces and social climate in architectural education: design studio vs. traditional classroom. In DS 76: Proceedings of E&PDE 2013, the 15th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Dublin, Ireland, 05-06.09. 2013.Google Scholar
Chen, W., You, M., 2010. Student response to an Internet-mediated industrial design studio course. Int J Technol Des Educ 20, 151–174. 10.1007/s10798-008-9068-2Google Scholar
Dorta, T., Kinayoglu, G., Boudhraâ, S., 2016. A new representational ecosystem for design teaching in the studio. Design Studies 47, 164–186. 10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.003Google Scholar
J, DUART. and A, SANGRÀ., 2000. Aprender en la virtualidad-Gedisa.Google Scholar
Graham, C.R., 2006. Blended learning systems. The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs, 1, pp.3–21.Google Scholar
Iranmanesh, A., Onur, Z., 2021. Mandatory Virtual Design Studio for All: Exploring the Transformations of Architectural Education amidst the Global Pandemic. Int J Art Des Educ 40, 251–267. 10.1111/jade.12350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D., Lotz, N., Holden, G., 2021. A longitudinal study of virtual design studio (VDS) use in STEM distance design education. Int J Technol Des Educ 31, 839–865. 10.1007/s10798-020-09576-zGoogle Scholar
Joundi, J., Christiaens, Y., Saldien, J., Conradie, P., De Marez, L., 2020. AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY TOWARDS USING VR SKETCHING AS A TOOL FOR IDEATION AND PROTOTYPING IN PRODUCT DESIGN. Proc. Des. Soc.: Des. Conf. 1, 225–234. 10.1017/dsd.2020.61Google Scholar
Mohapatra, B.N., Mohapatra, R.K., Jijnyasa, J. and Shruti, Z., 2020. Easy performance based learning of arduino and sensors through Tinkercad. International Journal of Open Information Technologies, 8(10).Google Scholar
Nespoli, O.G., Hurst, A., Gero, J.S., 2021. Exploring tutor-student interactions in a novel virtual design studio. Design Studies 75, 101019. 10.1016/j.destud.2021.101019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posey, G., Burgess, T., Eason, M. and Jones, Y., 2010, March. The Advantages and Disadvantages of the Virtual Classroom and the Role of the Teacher. In Southwest Decision Sciences Institute Conference (pp. 2–6).Google Scholar
Raygoza, M., León, R. and Norris, A., 2020. Humanizing online teaching. Unpublished manuscript]. Kalmanovitz School of Education Faculty Works http://works.bepress.com/mary-candace-raygoza/28.Google Scholar
Senyapili, B., Karakaya, A.F., 2009. The Future Setting of the Design Studio. OHI 34, 104–112. 10.1108/OHI-01-2009-B0012Google Scholar
Severino, L., Petrovich, M., Mercanti-Anthony, S., Fischer, S., 2021. Using a Design Thinking Approach for an Asynchronous Learning Platform during COVID-19. ije 9, 145–162. 10.22492/ije.9.2.09Google Scholar
Shaqour, E., 2021. Benefits, Disadvantages, and Constrains of Applying Blended and Virtual Design (Case Study: Studios at Nahda University). (Dept. A). MEJ. Mansoura Engineering Journal 46, 54–62. 10.21608/bfemu.2021.158861Google Scholar
Shreeve, A., 2012. The way we were? Signature pedagogies under threat.Google Scholar
Tschimmel, K., 2012. Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (p. 1). The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).Google Scholar
Vyas, D., van der Veer, G., Nijholt, A., 2013. Creative practices in the design studio culture: collaboration and communication. Cogn Tech Work 15, 415–443. 10.1007/s10111-012-0232-9Google Scholar
Wu, T.-Y., Gong, J., Seyed, T., Yang, X.-D., 2019. Proxino: Enabling Prototyping of Virtual Circuits with Physical Proxies, in: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. Presented at the UIST ’19: The 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, ACM, New Orleans LA USA, pp. 121–132. 10.1145/3332165.3347938Google Scholar
Zulaikha, E. and Sari, E., 2020. Keep online design thinking alive: A case study in Indonesia. In ICCE-Int. Conf. Comput. Educ., Proc. (pp. 503–512).Google Scholar