Abstract
Critique is the most common aspect of studio design education. This structure and practice is how design skills are developed around the world within a design studio. This chapter examines the design critique, compares its structure and results to established educational theory, and maps the process for use in a distributed or distance environment. It begins with an examination of design and the design studio, and then focuses on the central aspect of design professions: the critique. While there are a wide range of terms used in connection with critique, various forms will be examined here to provide a diversified examination of this pedagogical methodology. Concluding with an examination of the use of critique in distance and online education, some alternatives for technology and strategy are presented. This may provide a model for distributed cognition and learning, both in formal class settings and elsewhere.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anthony, K. (1987). Private reactions to public criticism: Students, faculty, and practicing architects state their views on design juries in architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education, 40(3), 2–11.
Akin O., & Lin, C. (1995). Design protocol data and novel design decisions. Design Studies, 76(2), 211–236.http://intranet.rave.ac.uk/quality/docs/LTR080107-Critprojectfinalsentreportversion2.doc.
Blythman, M., Orr, S., & Blair, B. (2007). Critiquing the crit. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from http://intranet.rave.ac.uk/quality/docs/LTR080107-Critprojectfinalsentreportversion2.doc.
Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. (2010). The studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research & Development. Retrieved October 10, 2001, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/035116619636v888/fulltext.pdf.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conanan, D., & Pinkard, N. (2000). Studio zone: Computer support for reflective design. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 176–177). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Conanan, D. M., Pinkard, N. (1997). Students’ perception of giving and receiving design critiques in an online learning environment. In Conference proceedings on computer supported collaborative learning, 22–24 March, Maastricht, Netherlands. Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://www.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/papers/29.pdf.
Cowan, J., & Chiu, Y. (2009). A critical friend from BJET? British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 59–60.
Cross, N. (1997). Descriptive models of creative design: Application to an example. Design Studies, 18(4), 427–440.
Dewey, J. (1974). John Dewey on Education: Selected Writings. (R. D. Archambault, ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dorst, K. (2008). Viewpoint: Design research: A revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies, 29(1), 4–11.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: The Free Press.
Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design: Concepts and framework. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(7), 435–448.
Gero, J. S. (2002). Computational models of creative designing based on situated cognition. In T. Hewett & T. Kavanagh (Eds.), Creativity and cognition 2002 (pp. 3–10). New York: ACM.
Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Martin, R. (2007). The opposable mind. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: Mentor Books.
Neill, T. M., Gero, J., & Warren, J. (1998). Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol analysis. Research in Engineering Design, 70(3),129–140.
Percy, C. (2004). Critical absence versus critical engagement: problematics of the crit in design learning and teaching. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education Journal, 2(3), 143–154.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Burlington: Ashgrove.
Schön, D. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shaffer, D. W. (2000). Design, collaboration, and computation: The design studio as a model for computer-supported collaboration in mathematics. In CSCL ‘97 proceedings (pp. 249–255). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved 24 April, 2010, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu.
Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of educational and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hokanson, B. (2012). The Design Critique as a Model for Distributed Learning. In: Moller, L., Huett, J. (eds) The Next Generation of Distance Education. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1784-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1785-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)