Revisiting a CAD course in the midst of the global pandemic with an activity-centered framework
Reflections from design students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.4540Keywords:
CAD pedagogy, online design education, the ACAD Framework, activity-centered CAD learning, reflective writingAbstract
Inevitably, the global pandemic that occurred in 2020 had a significant impact on the practices of design education, and apparently, design teachers were not fully prepared and equipped. In this ambivalent and emergent era, they struggled to adapt their current teaching methods to online education. Since then, various teaching methods have been developed and applied to incorporate online delivery. As we see an invitation to advance learner-centered and process-based teaching approaches regarding Computer-Aided Design (CAD) education in the literature; in this article, we address how a constructively aligned CAD course has been adapted to online learning and how it affected design students’ learning experiences. Hence, we discuss the online CAD learning experience through students’ reflections based on the Activity-Centered Analysis and Design (ACAD) Framework. To get insights into their online learning experience on CAD, we asked students to write their thoughts based on a structured qualitative course evaluation template. Broadly, online learning practices in CAD not only resulted in challenges in design learning but also created opportunities as mentioned in students’ writings. Based on qualitative content analysis, students’ reflections on a CAD class implemented under the context of online learning can include both advantages and disadvantages of the online learning platform, peer learning, peer tutoring, active involvement in the class, communication, etc. As a result, students’ reflections on the CAD course made us think that the dimensions of the ACAD Framework are interwoven and interactive.
References
Antonietti, A., & Giorgetti, M. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs about learning from multimedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.06.002
Aras, L. (2021). Liberating design education after Corona Days. Academia Letters, 2. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL670 https://doi.org/10.20935/AL670
Başa, İ., & Şenyapılı, B. (2005). The (in)secure position of the design jury towards computer generated presentations. Design Studies, 26(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destu d.2004.09.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.006
Bender, D. M., Wood, B. J., & Vredevoogd, J. D. (2004). Teaching time: Distance education versus classroom instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1802_4 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1802_4
Bhavnani, S. K., Reif, F., & John, B. E. (2001). Beyond command knowledge: Identifying and teaching strategic knowledge for using complex computer applications. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 229–236). https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365107 https://doi.org/10.1145/365024.365107
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https ://doi.org/10.1007/BF001 38871 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. What the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead.
Boud, D. (2013). Introduction: Making the move to peer learning. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & J. Sampson (Eds.), Peer learning in higher education learning from & with other (pp. 1–20). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315042565 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315042565
Bülow, M.W. (2022). Designing synchronous hybrid learning spaces: Challenges and opportunities. In E. Gil, Y. Mor, Y. Dimitriadis, & C. Köppe. (eds) Hybrid Learning Spaces. Understanding Teaching-Learning Practice (pp. 135-163). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88520-5_9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88520-5_9
Carvalho, L., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Tsai, Y. S., Markauskaite, L., & De Laat, M. (2022). How can we design for learning in an AI world?. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100053 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100053
Chester, I. (2007). Teaching for CAD expertise. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9015-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9015-z
Chester, I. (2008). 3D-CAD: Modern technology–outdated pedagogy? Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(1), 7–9.
Çil, E., & Pakdil, O. (2007). Design instructor’s perspective on the role of computers in architectural education: A case study. METU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 24(2), 123–136.
Daalhuizen, J., & Schoormans, J. (2018). Pioneering online design teaching in a MOOC format: tools for facilitating experiential learning. International Journal of Design, 12(2), 1-14.
Davies, W., & Cormican, K. (2013). An analysis of the use of multimedia technology in computer aided design training: Towards effective design goals. Procedia Technology, 9, 200-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.022
Demirci, A. (2011). Bilgisayar destekli eğitimin grafik tasarım dersinde kullanımına ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri [Student views on the use of computer aided graphic design courses]. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 6(4), 472–484.
Dosen, A. S., Sher, W., Gajendran, T., & Gu, N. (2012). Teaching CAD: The challenges of online delivery to distance learning students. In Proceedings 37th AUBEA International Conference (pp. 48–56). http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/933946
Dreamson, N. (2020). Online design education: Meta-connective pedagogy. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(3), 483-497. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12314 https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12314
Fawns, T., Markauskaite, L., Carvalho, L., & Goodyear, P. (2022). H2m pedagogy: Designing for hybrid learning in medical education. In E. Gil, Y. Mor, Y. Dimitriadis & C. Köppe. (eds). Hybrid Learning Spaces. Understanding Teaching-Learning Practice (pp. 61-76). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88520-5_5 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88520-5_5
Fleischmann, K. (2019). From studio practice to online design education: Can we teach design online? Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La Revue Canadienne de L’apprentissage et de la Technologie, 45(1). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/208589/ https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27849
Fleischmann, K. (2020). Online design education: searching for a middle ground. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education. 19(1), 36-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022218758231 https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022218758231
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. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003046103. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003046103-13
Gelmez, K., & Arkan, S. (2022). Aligning a CAD course constructively: telling-to-peer and writing-to-peer activities for efficient use of CAD in design curricula. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 1813–1835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09656-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09656-8
Gelmez, K., & Bağlı, 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9424-1
Gelmez, K., Efilti, P., & Yilmaz, O. (2022). “Well, a tough question. Congratulations:” How and in what aspects do design students evaluate a design studio course? International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09775-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09775-w
Goodyear, P., Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2021). Activity-Centred Analysis and Design (ACAD): Core purposes, distinctive qualities and current developments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09926-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09926-7
Green, B. (2004). Personal construct psychology and content analysis. Personal Construct Theory & Practice, 1(3), 82-91.
Green, J. K., Burrow, M. S., & Carvalho, L. (2020). Designing for transition: supporting teachers and students cope with emergency remote education. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 906-922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00185-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00185-6
Hanna, R., & Barber, T. (2001). An inquiry into computers in design: Attitudes before-attitudes after. Design Studies, 22(3), 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00029-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00029-6
Himaki, S. E. (2021). How to sketch things with words: Exploring the relation between verbal and visual expressions of novice design students [Master thesis], Graduate School of Istanbul Technical University.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Ioannou, O. (2018). Opening up design studio education using blended and networked formats. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(47). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0129-7 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0129-7
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(5), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000009294 https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000009294
Lattuca, L. R., & Domagal-Goldman, J. M. (2007). Using qualitative methods to assess teaching effectiveness. New Directions for Institutional Research, 136, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.233 https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.233
Marshalsey, L., & Sclater, M. (2020). Together but apart: Creating and supporting online learning communities in an era of distributed studio education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(4), 826-840. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12331 https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12331
Milovanovic, A., Kostic, M., Zoric, A., Dordevic, A., Pesic, M., Bugarski, J., Todorovic, D., Sokolovic, N., & Josifovski, A. (2020). Transferring COVID-19 challenges into learning potentials: Online workshops in architectural education. Sustainability, 12(17), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177024 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177024
Newman, G., George, B., Li, D., Tao, Z., Yu, S., & Lee, R. J. (2018). Online learning in landscape architecture: Assessing issues, preferences, and student needs in design-related online education. Landscape Journal, 37(2), 41-63. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.37.2.41 https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.37.2.41
Onofrei, G., & Ferry, P. (2020). Reusable learning objects: a blended learning tool in teaching computer-aided design to engineering undergraduates. International Journal of Educational Management, 34(10), 1559-1575. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2019-0418 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2019-0418
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Platt, M. (1993). What student evaluations teach, Perspectives on Political Science, 22(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.1993.9944516 https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.1993.9944516
Rajagopal, K., & Mateusen, L. (2021). Designing virtual mobility as a transformative learning experience. Edutec. Revista Electrónica De Tecnología Educativa, (75), 9-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2021.75.1953 https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2021.75.1953
Seinauskas, R. (1997). A distance laboratory for computer-aided design. In Proceedings of International Conference on Microelectronic Systems Education (pp. 107-108). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSE.1997.612569 https://doi.org/10.1109/MSE.1997.612569
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art, Review of Educational Research, 83(4). https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870
Taşlı-Pektaş, Ş., & Erkip, F. (2006). Attitudes of design students toward computer usage in design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1079 8-005-3175-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-005-3175-0
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Falmer.
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172 https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410500345172
Tregloan, K., Soccio, P., & Thompson, J. (2020). BEL+T designs a DIAgram … a relational framework for teaching online. Distance Design Education [Online]. https://distancedesigneducation.com/2020/08/20/belt-designs-a-diagram-a-relational-framework-for-teaching-online
Tüfek, T. E. (2022). An unexpected shift to an online design studio course: Student insights on design critiques. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 41(1), 158-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12400 https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12400
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wood, J. (2003). Open minds and a sense of adventure: How teachers of art and design approach technology. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 13(1), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2004.00396.x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2004.00396.x
Wragg, N. (2020). Online communication design education: The importance of the social environment. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2287-2297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1605501 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1605501
Yixian, D., Qihua, T., Xuan, D., & Kongde, H. (2014). CAD/CAM courses integration of theoretical teaching and practical training. In Procedia—Social and behavioral sciences, 5th World Conference on Educational Sciences—CES 2013, 116, (pp. 4297–4300). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2 014.01.935 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.935
Yorgancıoğlu, D. (2020). Critical reflections on the surface, pedagogical and epistemological features of the design studio under the “new normal” conditions. Journal of Design Studio, 2(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.744577 https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.744577
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Koray Gelmez, Selin Arkan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
- The author(s) must manage their economic reproduction rights to any third party.
- The journal makes no financial or other compensation for submissions, unless a separate agreement regarding this matter has been made with the author(s).
- The journal is obliged to archive the manuscript (including metadata) in its originally published digital form for at least a suitable amount of time in which the manuscript can be accessed via a long-term archive for digital material, such as in the Norwegian universities’ institutional archives within the framework of the NORA partnership.
Readers of the journal can print out the published manuscripts under the same conditions as apply to the reproduction of physical copies.
Cited by
