Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Öğrenci Bakış Açısıyla Disiplinlerarası Stüdyo Dersi Katılımcı Personaları

Year 2021, Issue: 6, 41 - 77, 16.09.2021

Hayriye Yasemin Soylu Berrak Karaca Şalgamcıoğlu

https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.896745

Abstract

Bu makaleye konu olan çalışmanın temel motivasyonu Tasarım Araştırmaları ve Kuramı dersinde Endüstriyel Tasarım Bölümü öğrencilerine persona oluşturma yöntemi anlatılırken, ders içinde bu yöntem ile ilgili uygulama yapabilecekleri ortak bir deneyim arayışı olmuştur. Derse katılan öğrencilerin aynı zamanda fakültenin diğer bölümleri ile ortak Disiplinlerarası Stüdyo (DAS) dersini almaları ve bu öğrencilerin farklı tasarım disiplinlerinden gelen, çeşitli kişilik yapılarına sahip takım arkadaşları ile beraber çalışmakta yaşadıkları zorlukları her fırsatta ifade etmeleri neticesinde, öğrencilerden DAS takım arkadaşlarını dikkate alarak kurgusal personalar oluşturmaları istenmiş ve oluşturdukları personalar ışığında ders deneyimini öğrenciler açısından daha olumlu hale dönüştürecek bir DAS dersini tasarlamaları talep edilmiştir. Çalışma kapsamında öğrenciler tarafından oluşturulan personaların anlatımında kullanılan ifadeler gömülü teori yöntemi ve etkileşim süreç analizi kullanılarak incelenmiş ve sonrasında öğrenci önerileri ile eşleştirilmiştir. Sonuç olarak, daha olumlu bir DAS dersi deneyimi için, DAS derslerinin daha yapılandırılmış hale getirilmesi, takım çalışmasının yanı sıra bireysel çalışmanın da değerlendirmeye alınması ve ders kapsamında yapılan projelerin büyük oranda ders saatleri dahilinde tamamlanması yönünde öğrenci beklentileri ortaya çıkmıştır. Ortaya çıkan bulgular ışığında yazarlar, daha olumlu bir DAS deneyimi için öğrencilere DAS dersi öncesinde karar verme, zaman yönetimi konularında eğitim verilmesini önermektedir.

Keywords

disiplinlerarası stüdyo etkileşim süreç analizi stüdyo pedagojisi persona tasarım

References

  • Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Stragety: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. New York: McGrawHill.
  • Bales, R. (1950). A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction. American Sociological Review, 15(2), 257-263.
  • Belbin, M. (2010). Team Roles at Work. New York: Routledge.
  • Belbin-Sierra Danışmanlık. (2014). Belbin Takım Raporları. https://b92a5f17-67d2-4e89-bdaa-2ee5d4cc9180.filesusr.com/ugd/08c0ac_0fc76dc0044c4eb18cb901e1892f8f40.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Benne, K. D. ve Sheats, P. (1948). Functional Roles of Group Members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41-49.
  • Blomquist, A. ve Arvola, M. (2002). Personas in Action: Ethnography in an Interaction Design Team. Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, (s. 197-200).
  • Burke, P. J. (2006). Interaction in Small Groups. J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (s. 363-387). Hoboken, NJ: Springer.
  • Ciravoğlu, A. (2014). Notes on Architectural Education: An Experimental Approach to Design Studio. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 7-12.
  • Cooper, A. (2004). The Inmates are Running Asylum. Indianapolis: Sams.
  • Demirbaş, D. ve Timur Öğüt, Ş. (2018). Design Briefs for Industrial Design Studio Courses: Determination of Expectations and Requirements. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi-Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 6(2), 42-58.
  • Donnolen, A. (1998). Takım Dili. İstanbul: Sistem.
  • Er, Ö. ve Çetinkaya, M. (2010). How Would Design Education Engage with the Local Territorial Context? Shanghai Cumulus Working Papers (s. 192-196). Tongji University College of Design and Innovation.
  • Ertürk, G. (2007). Takım Liderliği ve Bunun Takım Motivasyonuna Etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Floyd, I. R., Twidale, M. B. ve Jones, M. C. (2008). Resolving Incommensurable Debates: A Preliminary Identification of Persona Kinds, Attributes, and Characteristics. Artifact: Journal of Design Practice, 2(1), 12-26.
  • Fredrick, T. A. (2008). Facilitating Better Teamwork: Analyzing the Challenges and Strategies of Classroom-Based Collaboration. Faculty Research ve Creative Activity: http://thekeep.eiu.edu/eng_fac/5. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Gelmez, K. ve Bağlı, H. (2018). Exploring the Functions of Reflective Writing in the Design Studio: A Study from the Point of View of Students. Art, Design ve Communication in Higher Education, 17(2), 177-197.
  • Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.
  • Goodwin, K. (2005). Perfecting your Personas. https://articles.uie.com/perfecting_personas/. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Gökşin, E. (2018). Dijital Pazarlama Temelleri (3. Baskı). İstanbul: Abaküs. https://www.dijitalfakulte.com/wp-content/uploads/Dijital_Pazarlama_Temelleri_ilk_4_bolum.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 21 Mart 2021.
  • Grudin, J. ve Pruitt, J. (2002). Personas, Participatory Design and Product Development: An infrastructure for Engagement. Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (s. 144-161). Malmö: ACM .
  • Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L. ve Felder, R. M. (2000). Dynamics of Peer Education in Cooperative Learning Workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 285-293.
  • Hartley, P. (2005). Developing Students’ Skills in Groups and Teamworking: Moving Experience into Critical Reflection. P. Hartley, A. Woods ve M. Pill (Ed.), Enhancing Teaching in Higher Education: New Approaches to Improving Student Learning (1. Baskı). (s. 61-70). London: Routledge.
  • Hasdoğan, G. (1996). The Role of User Models in Product Design For Assessment of User Needs. Design Studies, 17(1), 19-33.
  • Karaca Şalgamcıoğlu, B. ve Er, Ö. (2018). Behind the Shower Curtain: Seven Poems on Aging and Body Cleaning. Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies, 18(4), 272-282.
  • Katzenbach, J. R. ve Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance Organization. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School.
  • Kim, M. J., Ju, S. R. ve Lee, L. (2015). A Cross‐Cultural and Interdisciplinary Collaboration in a Joint Design Studio. International Journal of Art ve Design Education, 34(1), 102-120.
  • King, D. ve Lawley, S. (2019). Organizational Behaviour Extension Material (3. Baskı). https://learninglink.oup.com/static/5d4940798dc66e0010f815d9/page_02.htm. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. ve Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.
  • Laubheimer, P. (21 Haziran 2020). 3 Persona Types: Lightweight, Qualitative, and Statistical. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/persona-types/. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Matthews, T., Judge, T. ve Whittaker, S. (2012). How Do Designers and User Experience Professionals Actually Perceive and Use Personas? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12) (s. 1219-1228). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Miaskiewicz, T. ve Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and User Centered Design: How can Personas Benefit Product Design Processes? Design Studies, 32, 417-430.
  • Morrison, K. (1998). Management Theories for Educational Change. London: Paul Chapman.
  • Mumford, T. V., Morgeson, F. P., Iddekinge, C. H. ve Champion, M. A. (2008). The Team Role Test: Development and Validation of a Team Role Knowledge Situational Judgment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 250-267.
  • Natale, S. M., Sora, S. A. ve Kavalipurapu, S. B. (2004). Leadership in Teams: Managerial Responses. Team Performance Management, 10(3/4), 45-52.
  • Nielsen, L. (____). Personas. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/personas#heading_Four_different_perspectives_page_12414. Erişim Tarihi: 9 Mayıs 2021.
  • Nielsen, L. (2004). Engaging Personas And Narrative Scenarios. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg.
  • Nielsen, L., Hansen, K. S., Stage, J. ve Billestrup, J. (2015). A Template For Design Personas: Analysis of 47 Persona Descriptions From Danish Industries and Organizations. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), 45-61.
  • Norman, D. (2004). Ad-Hoc Personas and Emphatetic Focus. https://jnd.org/ad-hoc_personas_empathetic_focus/. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Pektaş, S. T. (2012). The Blended Design Studio: An Appraisal of New Delivery Modes in Design Education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 692-697.
  • Pruitt, J. ve Adlin, T. (2006). The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3. Baskı). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  • Straub, J. T. (2002). Ekip Kurma ve Yönetme. İstanbul: Hayat.
  • Strauss, A. L. ve Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures For Developing Grounded Theory (2. Baskı). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • The Deming Institute. (____). Deming Quotes. https://deming.org/quote_categories/teamwork/. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Toka, S. (2021). Mimarlık Eğitiminde Bütünleşik Eğitim Deneyimi ve Müfredat Önerisi. ARTS: Artuklu Sanat ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 5, 118-139.
  • Toruntay, H. (2011). Takım Rolleri Çalışması: X ve Y Kuşağı Üzerinde Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Tuckman, B. W. ve Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group ve Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427.
  • Uludağ, A. (____). Persona nedir ve Neden Kullanılır? https://adnanuludag.net/persona-nedir-ve-neden-kullanilir/. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Uysal, E. (2015). Temel Tasarım Dersine İlişkin Öğrenci Görüşleri. Yedi, 14, 51-65.
  • Yavuz, M. ve Güneş, S. (2020). Ontolojik Değişimlerin Endüstri Ürünleri Tasarımı Pratiklerine Yansımaları: Yıldız Tasarım ve Katılımcı Tasarım. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 26, 781-797.
  • Yenilmez, F. ve Bağlı, H. (2020). Changing Paradigms, Subjects, and Approaches in Industrial Design Studio Education in Turkey. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi – Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 8(2), 754-775.

Interdisciplinary Studio Course Participant Personas from the Student Point of View

Year 2021, Issue: 6, 41 - 77, 16.09.2021

Hayriye Yasemin Soylu Berrak Karaca Şalgamcıoğlu

https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.896745

Abstract

The major motivating factor for this paper is the search for a prior shared experience, from which personas would be withdrawn among industrial design students participating to the Design Research and Theory course. All of the participants enrolled to the course were also taking the Interdisciplinary Studio Course (ISC) together with architecture, interior architecture and urban planning students and they were complaining constantly concerning the difficulty of working with their teammates i.e., students coming from different educational backgrounds and having different personal traits. Thus, participants were asked to build fictional personas reflecting their ISC teammates and give suggestions on how ISC could be improved. Findings have been analyzed using grounded theory and interaction process analysis and compared with student suggestions. Results reveal that in order to improve the ISC, students have three requirements: i) a more structured syllabus, ii) individual performance evaluation in addition to team performance evaluation iii) completion of the team project within the course hours at school. In the light of these findings, authors suggest that students should be given training for decision making and time management before the start of the ISCs.

Keywords

design interaction process analysis interdisciplinary studio studio pedagogy persona

References

  • Ansoff, H. I. (1965). Corporate Stragety: An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. New York: McGrawHill.
  • Bales, R. (1950). A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction. American Sociological Review, 15(2), 257-263.
  • Belbin, M. (2010). Team Roles at Work. New York: Routledge.
  • Belbin-Sierra Danışmanlık. (2014). Belbin Takım Raporları. https://b92a5f17-67d2-4e89-bdaa-2ee5d4cc9180.filesusr.com/ugd/08c0ac_0fc76dc0044c4eb18cb901e1892f8f40.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Benne, K. D. ve Sheats, P. (1948). Functional Roles of Group Members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41-49.
  • Blomquist, A. ve Arvola, M. (2002). Personas in Action: Ethnography in an Interaction Design Team. Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, (s. 197-200).
  • Burke, P. J. (2006). Interaction in Small Groups. J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (s. 363-387). Hoboken, NJ: Springer.
  • Ciravoğlu, A. (2014). Notes on Architectural Education: An Experimental Approach to Design Studio. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 7-12.
  • Cooper, A. (2004). The Inmates are Running Asylum. Indianapolis: Sams.
  • Demirbaş, D. ve Timur Öğüt, Ş. (2018). Design Briefs for Industrial Design Studio Courses: Determination of Expectations and Requirements. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi-Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 6(2), 42-58.
  • Donnolen, A. (1998). Takım Dili. İstanbul: Sistem.
  • Er, Ö. ve Çetinkaya, M. (2010). How Would Design Education Engage with the Local Territorial Context? Shanghai Cumulus Working Papers (s. 192-196). Tongji University College of Design and Innovation.
  • Ertürk, G. (2007). Takım Liderliği ve Bunun Takım Motivasyonuna Etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Floyd, I. R., Twidale, M. B. ve Jones, M. C. (2008). Resolving Incommensurable Debates: A Preliminary Identification of Persona Kinds, Attributes, and Characteristics. Artifact: Journal of Design Practice, 2(1), 12-26.
  • Fredrick, T. A. (2008). Facilitating Better Teamwork: Analyzing the Challenges and Strategies of Classroom-Based Collaboration. Faculty Research ve Creative Activity: http://thekeep.eiu.edu/eng_fac/5. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Gelmez, K. ve Bağlı, H. (2018). Exploring the Functions of Reflective Writing in the Design Studio: A Study from the Point of View of Students. Art, Design ve Communication in Higher Education, 17(2), 177-197.
  • Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9-41.
  • Goodwin, K. (2005). Perfecting your Personas. https://articles.uie.com/perfecting_personas/. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Gökşin, E. (2018). Dijital Pazarlama Temelleri (3. Baskı). İstanbul: Abaküs. https://www.dijitalfakulte.com/wp-content/uploads/Dijital_Pazarlama_Temelleri_ilk_4_bolum.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 21 Mart 2021.
  • Grudin, J. ve Pruitt, J. (2002). Personas, Participatory Design and Product Development: An infrastructure for Engagement. Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (s. 144-161). Malmö: ACM .
  • Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L. ve Felder, R. M. (2000). Dynamics of Peer Education in Cooperative Learning Workgroups. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(3), 285-293.
  • Hartley, P. (2005). Developing Students’ Skills in Groups and Teamworking: Moving Experience into Critical Reflection. P. Hartley, A. Woods ve M. Pill (Ed.), Enhancing Teaching in Higher Education: New Approaches to Improving Student Learning (1. Baskı). (s. 61-70). London: Routledge.
  • Hasdoğan, G. (1996). The Role of User Models in Product Design For Assessment of User Needs. Design Studies, 17(1), 19-33.
  • Karaca Şalgamcıoğlu, B. ve Er, Ö. (2018). Behind the Shower Curtain: Seven Poems on Aging and Body Cleaning. Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies, 18(4), 272-282.
  • Katzenbach, J. R. ve Smith, D. K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance Organization. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School.
  • Kim, M. J., Ju, S. R. ve Lee, L. (2015). A Cross‐Cultural and Interdisciplinary Collaboration in a Joint Design Studio. International Journal of Art ve Design Education, 34(1), 102-120.
  • King, D. ve Lawley, S. (2019). Organizational Behaviour Extension Material (3. Baskı). https://learninglink.oup.com/static/5d4940798dc66e0010f815d9/page_02.htm. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. ve Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124.
  • Laubheimer, P. (21 Haziran 2020). 3 Persona Types: Lightweight, Qualitative, and Statistical. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/persona-types/. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Matthews, T., Judge, T. ve Whittaker, S. (2012). How Do Designers and User Experience Professionals Actually Perceive and Use Personas? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12) (s. 1219-1228). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Miaskiewicz, T. ve Kozar, K. A. (2011). Personas and User Centered Design: How can Personas Benefit Product Design Processes? Design Studies, 32, 417-430.
  • Morrison, K. (1998). Management Theories for Educational Change. London: Paul Chapman.
  • Mumford, T. V., Morgeson, F. P., Iddekinge, C. H. ve Champion, M. A. (2008). The Team Role Test: Development and Validation of a Team Role Knowledge Situational Judgment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 250-267.
  • Natale, S. M., Sora, S. A. ve Kavalipurapu, S. B. (2004). Leadership in Teams: Managerial Responses. Team Performance Management, 10(3/4), 45-52.
  • Nielsen, L. (____). Personas. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/personas#heading_Four_different_perspectives_page_12414. Erişim Tarihi: 9 Mayıs 2021.
  • Nielsen, L. (2004). Engaging Personas And Narrative Scenarios. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg.
  • Nielsen, L., Hansen, K. S., Stage, J. ve Billestrup, J. (2015). A Template For Design Personas: Analysis of 47 Persona Descriptions From Danish Industries and Organizations. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD), 45-61.
  • Norman, D. (2004). Ad-Hoc Personas and Emphatetic Focus. https://jnd.org/ad-hoc_personas_empathetic_focus/. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Pektaş, S. T. (2012). The Blended Design Studio: An Appraisal of New Delivery Modes in Design Education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 692-697.
  • Pruitt, J. ve Adlin, T. (2006). The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3. Baskı). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
  • Straub, J. T. (2002). Ekip Kurma ve Yönetme. İstanbul: Hayat.
  • Strauss, A. L. ve Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures For Developing Grounded Theory (2. Baskı). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • The Deming Institute. (____). Deming Quotes. https://deming.org/quote_categories/teamwork/. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Toka, S. (2021). Mimarlık Eğitiminde Bütünleşik Eğitim Deneyimi ve Müfredat Önerisi. ARTS: Artuklu Sanat ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 5, 118-139.
  • Toruntay, H. (2011). Takım Rolleri Çalışması: X ve Y Kuşağı Üzerinde Karşılaştırmalı Bir Araştırma. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Tuckman, B. W. ve Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group ve Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427.
  • Uludağ, A. (____). Persona nedir ve Neden Kullanılır? https://adnanuludag.net/persona-nedir-ve-neden-kullanilir/. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Mart 2021.
  • Uysal, E. (2015). Temel Tasarım Dersine İlişkin Öğrenci Görüşleri. Yedi, 14, 51-65.
  • Yavuz, M. ve Güneş, S. (2020). Ontolojik Değişimlerin Endüstri Ürünleri Tasarımı Pratiklerine Yansımaları: Yıldız Tasarım ve Katılımcı Tasarım. Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi, 26, 781-797.
  • Yenilmez, F. ve Bağlı, H. (2020). Changing Paradigms, Subjects, and Approaches in Industrial Design Studio Education in Turkey. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi – Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 8(2), 754-775.
There are 51 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Other Fields of Education
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

Hayriye Yasemin Soylu 0000-0001-8701-3573

Berrak Karaca Şalgamcıoğlu 0000-0003-0544-798X

Publication Date September 16, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021Issue: 6

Cite

APA Soylu, H. Y., & Karaca Şalgamcıoğlu, B. (2021). Öğrenci Bakış Açısıyla Disiplinlerarası Stüdyo Dersi Katılımcı Personaları. ARTS: Artuklu Sanat Ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi(6), 41-77. https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.896745
 Download Cover Image

21811

ARTS is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0 cc.svg?ref=chooser-v1by.svg?ref=chooser-v1nc.svg?ref=chooser-v1