I am Madhavi. I have my masters. Uh in toy end game design from National Institute of Design. And my undergraduation was in the field of dentistry. I have done my bachelors in dental surgery.

In my experience in the field of business.

And professionally.

Thank you for sharing that, Professor. Can you describe how your transition from dentistry to toy and game design has influenced your approach to design or research within emerging technologies?

Thank you, Professor. Could you share a bit about your professional journey after completing your master's in toy and game design?

Thank you, Professor. Could you elaborate on how your business experience has shaped your perspective when integrating emerging technologies into design or teaching?

So in academics I have designed. Design thinking workshops. For National Science and Technology Council of Kerala, they they have conducted for the students who were winners of. National Science exams. Then secondly, for masters students of. Journalism. And third, uh, their IIT. The kindergarten students I have. Design 3 Design printing workshops. And as far as teaching is concerned, I've taught and designed the curriculum and taught and executed the. Course of simple product design. And advanced product design in IDC School of Design.

Thanks, Professor. When you designed the curriculum for advanced product design at IDC, how did you incorporate emerging technologies such as AI or AR/VR into your coursework or assignments?

And as far as from a. I'm like, I'm a dentist, so. I have my perspectives on child psychology and I tried maximum to incorporate this. View of child psychology into. My designing. Umm, journey as a toy designer. And mainly. The chapters of systems assigned from my. College 90 National Student Design has encaptured me a lot. And that has. Given me. I know like a high end in designing. Any large ventures including curriculum or even. Let it be a national Film Festival, which I've done. In IITB recently. As a manager. So this system approaches. In. Successfully delivery. Such duties. I've been interested. And as a play experience designer, that means toy end game designer. I can bring about.

Replay elements in all the files which I work and make it. Effectively. Deliberately.

Thank you, Professor. When you mentioned incorporating child psychology into your toy and game design work, can you give a concrete example of how that perspective directly influenced a specific workshop or curriculum you developed?

Thank you, Professor. You mentioned running design thinking workshops for a range of audiences, including kindergarten students and journalism postgraduates. Can you describe a specific challenge you faced when adapting your teaching approach to such different age groups?

Show me teaching. A kindergarten students, it was very easy because. The storytelling. And hands on experience would definitely work with them. Because they are kids and the curiosity is still uh. Active in them. So contextually creating a magical story around the design thinking. Was easy. The challenge which I faced was designed the journalism masters students where there they were. First of all, they were not open to a design thinking approach. They had a. Very concrete approach towards dealing things. So I had to. Contextually create the, uh, the codes.

By something common which everybody has been dealing with, that is cooking. So I OK, yes.

Right, so when you needed to engage journalism students who were resistant to design thinking, what specific strategy or activity did you use to shift their mindset?

Interesting approach. When you used cooking as a common context to bridge the gap for those journalism students, what specific design thinking activity or exercise did you run, and how did the students respond to it?

The students response was very.

Because they could do the exercise which I gave was like they I gave them a scenario for fridge. And they have a time constraint of one hour to cook something. Which was very native to the place of Kerala. Putter and egg Curry. So I have given certain ingredients. And I've asked. Then how do we, how would you tackle that?

Okay, and reflecting on your experience teaching both practical design and design thinking, how do you assess whether your students have actually internalized and can apply these concepts, rather than just completing assignments?

Very encouraging to.

Thank you for sharing that. When you designed simple and advanced product design courses at IDC, what was your approach for evaluating student projects—did you use specific rubrics or industry benchmarks to assess their work?

Cooking like. With all these constraints and vessel constraints also have. So with this taking through. Taking them through this journey of exercises. Uh, I introduced them. To the process of design thinking.

Thank you for sharing that. When you designed simple and advanced product design courses at IDC, what was your approach for evaluating student projects—did you use specific rubrics or industry benchmarks?

But they were very open to it and. They came up with interesting questions as well. So I thought I could understand that. The delivery was affected.

Got it. When you introduced design thinking through that cooking exercise, how did you measure whether the students had truly grasped the core principles beyond just completing the activity?

Thank you, Professor. When you later adapted this design thinking approach for your product design courses at IDC, did you use similar real-life scenarios, or did you shift to a different method for engaging postgraduate design students?

In IDC, I dealt with Btech students and Mtech students are not designed students. And yes, I had to. Shift strategy from this. To another level of. Umm, contextual umm. Exercise. Because answers engineering students, they know techniques of. Um, prototyping. So from there I devised a curriculum. Through Wish again. They were introduced to the design process. And I I related. Their projects. To the design slightly. I I I made sure that there is a. Overlap between their project and our design thinking process. And the course was completely hands on on. Using the workshops of IDC. So again, that was more enjoyable for them and the tasks were a bit. Had a bit of fun element in it and they. Thoroughly enjoyed an at least understood the. Concept of design.

Thank you, Professor. When you incorporated hands-on workshops and ensured overlap between engineering students' projects and design thinking, what was one concrete example of a project where this integration led to a notable breakthrough or learning moment for the students?

So one of the.

Activity for the advanced product design.

Thank you. In that hands-on IDC course, what specific prototyping tools or workshop resources did you find most effective for helping students translate design thinking into tangible outcomes?

Okay. For that advanced product design activity, what was the main challenge students faced during the prototyping phase, and how did you guide them through it?

Topic where they could use a bit of reverse engineering, like kind of a product autopsy. Uh, simple products which they use they. Understand study. And. Understand the problem which they face and they can correct it and redesign. So these two. Challenges These two type of challenges, there were multiple other challenges I felt. They could relate. More weathered and they could come up with more innovative ideas. And they understood the process. What design is? As absolute problem solving.

Thank you. When students performed product autopsies and redesigns, what criteria did you emphasize for evaluating the quality and originality of their proposed improvements?

So since it was Btech students and they didn't have a background in design and the time was really constrained, we had hardly three to four months. The evaluation criteria was just the thought. Thought process how?

Understood. When assessing their thought process, what specific evidence or artifacts did you look for in their project documentation or presentations to confirm they were applying design thinking principles rather than just jumping to solutions?

How different or how did? How much did they push themselves in the thought process? And was 1 criteria for assessing the. Not maybe the uniqueness, but they quality of the process. So for ensure for understanding that at each. Uh, point of the. Our design process, we had assignments. Like understanding the problem of statement giving few. Assessment questions for their product. So that nudging themselves to understand. Understand their product problems more. So through that we assessed more and final. Model was not very strictly assessed because we knew there. Limitations in time and skill.

Thank you, Professor. Given your approach focused on process over final output, can you share a specific example where a student's documented thought process or assignment revealed a breakthrough in their understanding of design as problem solving?

So you ask one of my.

Favorite the the student.

Of course. Please share one instance where a student's assignment or reflection demonstrated that key shift in their understanding—what did they write or present that made it clear to you?

Thank you. What specific aspect of that student's project or documented process stood out to you as a sign of genuine growth in their approach to design problem solving?

A user he is facing. And he redesign. The crutches which he was using and he made a small mock model, though he couldn't test it out. He understood the process and he. Thought really, what are the? Problems he is facing currently. And using the. Power of design process. He made problems in product. And. I suppose he is going forward. Developing that product.

That's a compelling example. How did you document and assess the student's approach to redesigning the crutches, especially given that the final prototype couldn't be fully tested?

So as I mentioned earlier at.

Each and every stages look so we had. Twice a week. And every. Second day we had assessment. Not sent. They could sit in the class and. Finish the assignment so. We could. Move around and help them and nudge them thinking more. And completing the assignments and by end of the day they. Submitted the assignment and we. Assist these assignments and. Gave the marks accordingly.

Right, so in that case, what specific feedback or questions did you give the student to help them refine their design thinking further for the crutches project?

But they made a small prototype. Uh, which showed the working offer. Though he couldn't. Tested with actual material due to the time constraint and material constraint and even the. Technology constraint at the. Given point of time in the college.

Understood. When providing feedback during those class assessments, what was one question or prompt you used to challenge students to dig deeper into their design reasoning?

Thank you. Given the constraints with materials and technology, what alternative approaches or resources did you suggest to students to help them prototype or demonstrate their design concepts more effectively?

And see how it is moving in actual fusion 365 and. See if it is moving. Is it? Is it having any?

Issues when you simulate the movements and. Also.

Right, so when students created digital prototypes in Fusion 360, what criteria did you use to evaluate the effectiveness of their simulations or digital demonstrations?

I I have pushed them to make. Uh, low fidelity prototype. But it's very.

Okay, when students identified issues during their Fusion 360 simulations, how did you guide them to iterate or troubleshoot their digital prototypes within the constraints of the tool?

When you encouraged students to build low-fidelity prototypes, what materials or construction methods did you find most effective for quickly conveying their design intent under those constraints?

It's not effective as. Expected so. If he is more motivated, we have promised him to. Source the suitable materials from the college and start. Give a opportunity for him to work on his final program.

Thanks for explaining your approach. For students who preferred digital prototypes in Fusion 360, what was one common mistake or misconception you noticed during their simulations, and how did you address it in class?

Sorry they didn't come up with I. Sorry, didn't come up with the. Models to me. They tried with themselves because they said they are. More familiar with those softwares. Uh, because they were engineering students.

Understood. When students worked independently on digital models, how did you verify their progress and ensure they were applying key principles of the design process rather than just focusing on software familiarity?

And I was. Frankly speaking, I'm not very. Velvet officials were surprised. So. Um, the students themselves have tried out and noted. And corrected their models.

Using the help of the digital tools. And this was done after the course meeting. Proposed type. Because during the course.

Understood. Given your own limited familiarity with the digital tools, how did you ensure fairness and academic rigor when assessing student work that you couldn't directly evaluate through the software?

And we didn't have time. So after during the follow up sessions, like out of interest they have come to me. And done this.

Given that students worked independently on their digital models and addressed issues themselves, how did you ensure that the key learning objectives of the course—such as critical reflection on design choices—were still being met during your assessment process?

Understood. Given that students continued developing their digital prototypes independently after the course, how did you track or support their ongoing progress, especially in relation to your role as their academic mentor?

The connected via WhatsApp. Phone and. Whenever they wanted. I used to come down to the university and. Help them in class. Because they are from the different departments and they had their pre scheduled running. After classes, After class hours, at six to seven. In the evening they used to come and meet me. Maybe in the cafeterias or the libraries and uh. I used to. Clear that outs.

Thanks for clarifying. When meeting students after hours or in informal settings like the cafeteria, how did you maintain academic boundaries and ensure those mentoring sessions remained structured and productive?

I just stuck on to.

Clearing the doubts. And I never I made sure the meetings. Went beyond 20 minutes Max because I am also. Having a family so. I have structured and made it sure that it's just sticking onto. The course cleared the doubt clearance and you put all anything. Which I can address via over the phone then I used to prefer that.

Understood. During those after-class mentoring sessions, what specific strategies did you use to give constructive feedback while ensuring students took ownership of their design decisions?

That makes sense. When a student's design direction didn't align with best practices, how did you prompt them to reconsider or justify their choices during those brief feedback sessions?

Out of the framework. So they were Btech students and I'm a design college. Design Tutor. But it's their motivation, so I don't think so I had any. Role other than motivating them. It was self motivated. They did they work themselves because they wanted to do it. And during class. I could use it using.

The constraints of parking because each assignment was marked where marked and that was.

Understood. Since you mentioned motivating students was your main role when they pursued work outside the formal framework, how did you document or reflect on these mentoring experiences for your own professional development?

They were. The students were informed about the marks, so they worked accordingly. Outside the classes it was. Purely self driven by the students interest.

Right. During the formal assessment period, can you share an example of how you structured an assignment to ensure students demonstrated both conceptual understanding and practical design skills?

Thanks for clarifying the boundaries between formal and informal student work. During the formal assessment period, can you share a specific example of an assignment you designed that required students to demonstrate both conceptual understanding and hands-on design skills?

So one of the assignments where using abstract. Animal. Models. Create a useful product. So first of all. It was attached from our side to. Uh, make them understand. The theory of abstraction. Though I know like. It was a very small limited time for them like they had. Maximum 5 weeks to work on abstraction. But basic concepts of how an abstraction is done. And thinking. How the form? Of this animal, the abstract form of the animal can be converted into a useful product which they use in their daily lives. For example. A kitchen knife holder. Out of uh. Porcupines obstructed model. Sorry, not a kitchen knife. A pencil holder outside using. Uh, porcupine abstract model. Let's come up with one of my students. Which use the the pine.

Feature of the animal. And the Bal, the balancing of the. Pencils on the back of. Produced an abstract model of Porcupine. So this gave me. Clarity on the conceptual understanding as well as handwork.

Interesting example. When students worked on this abstraction assignment, what criteria did you use to evaluate both their conceptual approach and the functionality of their final product?

Interesting example. When guiding students through the abstraction process for that assignment, what common misunderstandings or challenges did you observe, and how did you address them in the classroom?

Reindeers. No. The porcupines. Cooking nature that can be abstracted the concept of. That concept. Relating that was.

Kind of a tricky area, but. Telling them, being with them, guiding them through the uh. Process by. Like telling them the stories of what do you feel when you risk? Listen about this animal. And how Can you imagine that feeling as a? Image connected to those animal. Was a simple very.

Right, so when students struggled to abstract less tangible qualities—like a porcupine's protective nature—what specific strategies or prompts did you use to help them translate those conceptual attributes into their designs?

Right, so when you encouraged students to imagine feelings or stories related to an animal, did you find any particular story or approach resonated best in helping them move from abstract ideas to concrete design features?

So being with them constant guidance.

Nudging them in the right direction was 1. Way in the given constraint of time I felt. Useful.

Right, you emphasized constant guidance during the abstraction process—can you describe a moment when a student’s initial attempt at abstraction was off-track, and what specific feedback you gave to redirect their approach?

You mentioned that nudging students in the right direction was helpful—can you recall a time when a student's abstraction missed the intended concept, and describe the specific feedback or adjustment you offered to help them realign their approach?

I can't think. Yeah, abstracting. A dragon? Yeah, a student came up with the concept of a dragon.

Easy for me as well as difficult for me in that sense because. It was difficult for him, me to. Convince him what is the problem with using a dragon because which was? Definitely not an animal.

And yeah, it was.

Understood. When the student chose a dragon for abstraction, what specific aspects of their model or approach did you ask them to reconsider so it would better fit the assignment's educational goals?

Understood. When the student presented the dragon abstraction, what criteria did you use to evaluate whether their interpretation met both the conceptual and practical aspects you were aiming for?

And it was abstract. In the very beginning, because any dragon is a. Imaginary.

Understood. When reviewing that student's dragon abstraction, how did you communicate the importance of working within assignment guidelines while still fostering their creative motivation?

And that is already abstracted.

Got it. With that situation in mind, how did you balance reinforcing the assignment’s real-world constraints with encouraging the student’s imagination when their choice didn’t strictly fit the brief?

Understood. Reflecting on your broader teaching experience, how do you ensure that grading and feedback for creative assignments remain objective and fair, especially when student interpretations can vary widely?

Giving criteria, for example if it is a 50 marks question. Giving 5 criteria. For the uh for thinking uniquely.

That makes sense. Can you give an example of one of the criteria you used to evaluate “unique thinking” in a student's abstraction assignment, and how you determined whether a student's work met that criterion?

Understanding or readiness to change USWAN criteria. Then.

Thanks for clarifying your approach. For the “readiness to change” criterion you mentioned, what kind of student behavior or output would earn full marks in that area?

Venetian material like hands-on. It was always hands-on. So finish. And uh.

Finishing of this product like. Even though it is a small product of finishing was. And also submission on time wish anybody it is very. Yeah, what do you say? Comment everyone so. Certain basic criterias we have kept. And I have interacted with every students personally so. We would know the motivation level also, which is a bit, uh, subjective, but yes, motivation level. It's also criteria. Internally too much.

Thanks for explaining your criteria. For the hands-on material component, can you share a time when a student's practical execution was strong but their concept or reasoning fell short, and how you addressed this in your feedback?

Right. You mentioned interacting with every student personally to assess motivation—how do you ensure that this subjective measure doesn’t lead to bias or inconsistency across your student evaluations?

And. This attendance.

Thanks for detailing your approach. Regarding the importance you placed on timely submission, can you describe a situation where a student struggled to meet deadlines, and how you balanced enforcing the standard with providing support or flexibility?

Move to There were moments during festival seasons. They had. Asked for his. Extension. So. One time when we bent. This extension timeline. We had. Extended it. Like for one week. Suggesting that submitted 2 assignments together.

Yes, this student struggle is always there to meet the deadline. But this was kind of a practical. Uh, solution like. A genuine request request from the student to extend the deadline. So we have extended by.

Understood. After extending the deadline and allowing two assignments to be submitted together, what impact did you observe on the quality of the students’ work or their approach to time management?

That’s clear. Reflecting on your experience with deadline extensions, how did you communicate expectations to students to ensure fairness and maintain academic standards during those periods?

Not one day, but one week, but the. Clubbing of the second assignment, so that was seemed fair. Other declines aid. Hardly didn't extend when extended. We had initially itself, we had shared a framework. That's saying that. Marks will be detected. Like within 124 hours. The smash Marks and after three days it won't be act.

Thanks for sharing your policy on late submissions. Shifting slightly, when you set up these grading frameworks and communicate them to students at the start of a course, how do you ensure students truly understand the expectations and consequences—do you use any specific strategies beyond just distributing a syllabus?

And I. Make sure that every task has a task sheet with learning objectives and outcomes expected. Along with this split up of D. Criteria which we are looking from like how the. So it'll be based on SO. They are reinforced through a three task sheets also.

Thank you for explaining your orientation process. When you provide these detailed task sheets with learning objectives and criteria, how do you handle situations where a student challenges the fairness or clarity of an assignment’s requirements?

So far I have not. Encounter problems of. We're questioning the assignment. Careless because. Like after a round of discussions with my colleagues. Come up with the. Basic criteria, for example as I as. The 8th submission. And.

The the time of submission.

Thank you. Since you’ve emphasized collaborative discussion in assignment design, could you share an example where input from your colleagues significantly changed the way you assessed or structured a particular assignment?

Understood. When you collaborate with colleagues to set submission policies and assignment criteria, how do you ensure consistency across different sections or faculty members teaching the same course?

So I have two assistants and we three combined, uh. And jointly assess each each work and how. We did fairness in list. In assessment was V3. Using the same criteria gave marks individually without. Discussing each other. And finally, we took the average of the. Our our three Marks and gave it as. Single project students so that. We had uh. Consistency. Cross all the s s s s simply.

That’s a thorough approach. When averaging marks among assessors, have you ever encountered significant discrepancies, and if so, how did you resolve differences to reach a fair final grade?

So initial discussion. How the marking has to be done with? Discussed like at the beginning. Like for example this is a no no and this is. An absolute yes and. One criteria if this is there an absolute hurtful person we can be so such basic understanding we had. Initially designed among the assessors. So. It is easy so. A great disparity was. Never. Encounter.

Thank you for clarifying. Shifting focus, can you describe how you incorporate hands-on elements or experiential learning when teaching design concepts, particularly when introducing new technologies like AR or AI in your courses?

And more subjective. Uh criteria was also avoided. It was more objective and. Easily Mark.

That clarifies your approach. When removing subjectivity from assessments, how do you handle evaluating creative or innovative solutions in student projects that may not fit the standard criteria but demonstrate strong design thinking?

This I don't see it as two different things because.

Interesting perspective. Can you give an example of a student project where the work was highly unconventional, and explain how you justified the evaluation to the student or your colleagues?

So I give more weight days for the design.

Strong thinking is an empty process.

That emphasis on design thinking is clear. Can you recall a time when a student’s approach to solving a design problem surprised you, and how did you respond in your feedback or grading?

I see your focus on design thinking as a structured process. Can you describe a specific instance where a student's problem-solving approach in a project led you to adjust your evaluation criteria or rubric?

The same example which I noted for the crutches.

So I really like he took a long time then the compare the though. Assignments were submitted. On time, the prototyping was not completed. But the strong design process behind it, the iteration and the time. And the.

Understood. When evaluating that crutches project, what specific indicators or evidence did you look for in the student’s process to determine that their solution demonstrated strong design thinking?

Different ideations he came up with with Strong. Process behind was evaluated on that.

When you decided to give credit for the student’s process despite an incomplete prototype, how did you communicate your decision and its rationale to both the student and your assessment team?

Add spectacle and. That gave him more noise. Then the, uh, final offer.

Thank you for explaining. When you evaluated the student’s process in the crutches project, what specific documentation or artifacts did the student provide that demonstrated their iterative design and problem-solving approach?

Thank you. In cases where process and iteration outweigh the final deliverable, how do you ensure transparency so students understand how their work will be valued before submission?

Each day's assignments which were not hands on the process which was the. Basically, the core processes were assessed. Very strict. That they have been informed before and. Then and there with them we discuss what are their flaws and where are they going wrong. And in spite of that, they don't correct it. That is when they lose their marks.

Understood. For those ongoing feedback discussions you mentioned, can you give an example of how you guided a student to improve their process after identifying a specific flaw during a project?

The beauty of opening it because he wanted to abstract the. Magic of the opening so. Nudging him to iterate different types of movements without his hand coming in the field of vision. Of opening it. Was an, uh, interesting experience which. Help them navigate through the design process.

That's a thoughtful example. In guiding that student through iterations on the oyster ring box, what feedback did you provide to help them balance capturing the emotional experience with ensuring the product’s usability?

Same thing which I mentioned. The he wanted to capture the emotion of opening it with with an. So, umm. If it is cap B. Amount of how much the hand is covering the opening of the box could hamper the. Emotion, which the box had to. Convict. So we had to. Design movements which. He could hold somewhere else and. Open the oyster box and maintain the. All of the open in the oyster box.

Thank you for clarifying your approach. Reflecting on your experiences with student projects like the oyster ring box, what strategies have you found most effective for encouraging students to iterate and refine their ideas rather than settling on their first solution?