Gaurav Singh

The first cycle of the odd semester at Srishti presented me with unexpected challenges. I was assigned to teach classes that were not in line with my interests, which left me feeling disappointed and uncomfortable. While I appreciate the idea behind exposing newcomers to various subjects to better prepare them, I was uncertain if it would benefit me as I have a specific area of interest that I am focused on, and any deviation from it could derail my roadmap. Initially, I was assigned to teach two units in the first cycle: one in Interaction Design for Master's students and another outside of my area of expertise. However, due to a lack of sign-ups, the latter was canceled, and I was reassigned to another unit in Interaction Design for undergraduates.

Interaction design beyond screens. In the first unit, Dr.Naveen Bagalkot and I led a class on Electronic Prototyping: Genuino 101 as a means of sketching interactions for the Master's students. This class required the students to do a lot of self-learning to grasp the fundamentals of programming and electronic circuits. While some students who had a background in engineering were able to follow along easily, others struggled to keep up with the assignments. Our expectations were based on the scheme of learning we had planned for Srishti's human-centered design program this year. Nevertheless, by the end of the class, some students excelled and produced prototypes of a high standard within the ten-day studio period. It was a great start, although we didn't entirely meet our expectations. In the future, my challenge for similar classes would be determining the median level of the students' knowledge and understanding of electronics and computer programming and providing information packets based on that.

Electronic Prototyping is now more critical for Interaction Designers than ever, but some students are intimidated by the concept. How can we impress its significance on them? I believe this cannot happen overnight, but rather requires a series of smaller disruptions to create a culture of action. Faculty members, alumni, and senior students should set an example, and we should emphasize the importance of this discipline.

I'm unsure if I contributed as much as Naveen had expected of me. I believe I can improve my assessment skills, and I have a slightly different way of providing feedback that may not be consistent with Srishti's approach. I am working on being more aware of students and their assignments so that I can give feedback that is more helpful and not merely nitpicking minor issues.

Interaction Design 1. In the other unit, Riyaz and I taught Interaction Design to second and third-year students. Our approach to designing and delivering the content of the class didn't involve simplifying the technical aspects of Interaction Design. Instead, we used these technical aspects themselves to generate interest and shape the class through technology. For instance, we showed the physical components of the computer to demonstrate what lies inside the computer. The assignments focused on speculating and creating interactions through electronic prototyping. Therefore, it was not just about generating concepts on paper, but making them work through Arduino, which encouraged students to think beyond static sketches. Additionally, students were asked to sketch their ideas through video enactment, which was an effective technique because students had a lot of fun during the video-making exercise. This is reflected in the quality of their video and subsequently in their thought process.

Design workshop by Topcoder. We also hosted a Topcoder workshop that was in alignment with the studio's focus and its ability to help students discern, align, and create interactions for cognitive design. The students appreciated the workshop, and some even won cash prizes for their designs from Topcoder. Students could relate the workshop's content to the class material, which enhanced the credibility of our content in their minds.

Despite hosting a workshop on legal rights and plagiarism at Srishti, some students did not take it seriously when it came to their assignments. We had to include an extra class on referencing to address this issue and ensure students understood the importance of proper citation. Although this was a small detour that affected the curriculum plan, it was necessary for the students. Towards the end of the studio, a few students (who coincidentally did not have HCD as a major) dropped the class either due to being unable to keep up with the pace or having different expectations from the studio. However, this behavior can affect other students and promote a casual attitude towards the studio.

For the assessment, we divided one large project into three assignments - A1, A2, and A3. While this was a good approach, it can be challenging to sustain student interest throughout the course of the studio. I believe we need to design the assignments more meticulously, taking into account any exceptions. We asked students to submit A3 on the last day, which was also the exhibition day. This created a last-minute chaos that did not help much with the development of A3. Overall, it was my first full-time teaching experience at Srishti, and while everything fell into order, I recognize that there were areas where I could have done better.

Key points

1. Assessment of group assignments are difficult because sometimes one or more students do not work in the group but benefits from the group assessment because their group overall has produced a good work. How should be this dealt?
2. Sustaining student’s interest across the course of studio is difficult and needs to be accounted while planning the studio.
3. Many students do not understand the severity of plagiarism.
4. An engaging class needs as much student’s participation as a facilitator’s. How do we encourage student participation?
5. How do we inculcate honesty and integrity in students?