Democratizing assessment practices through multimodal critique in the design classroom
Critique is a primary method of assessment and feedback used in design education, yet is not well understood apart from traditional instructor-led activities in physical learning spaces. In this study, we analyze a series of group critiques in a human–computer interaction learning experience, focusing on an emergent instructional design for technologically-mediated critique created by experienced students serving as peer mentors. Peer mentors designed complex interactions that supported assessment in the design classroom, including multiple technology-supported modes of critique beyond the traditional oral critique. The modes of critique, and the ways in which they intertwined, included: (1) public oral critique led by the instructor, (2) a critique document authored by experienced students in real-time using Google Docs, and (3) backchannel chat used by experienced students in Google Docs to facilitate and organize their critique. Using this model of distributed assessment, which we refer to as multimodal critique, the amount of feedback and number of interlocutors increased dramatically, facilitating participation by students and peer mentors alike. These interactions indicate instructional affordances for including many simultaneous users within an existing assessment infrastructure using readily accessible technologies, and a means of activating student development at multiple levels of expertise.
KeywordsCritique Computer-mediated communication Collaborative learning Interactive learning environments Human–computer interaction
I gratefully acknowledge the early feedback on this data analysis approach from Craig Howard, and the helpful comments on earlier versions of this work by attendees of LearnxDesign 2015 in Chicago, IL.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
- Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
- Blythman, M., Orr, S., & Blair, B. (2007). Critiquing the crit. The Higher Education Academy, Art, Design and Media Subject Centre. Retrieved from https://intranet.rave.ac.uk/download/attachments/121176147/LTR080107-Critprojectfinalsentreportversion2.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1321008897257.
- Boling, E., Gray, C. M., & Smith, K. M. (2015, April). Who are these “novices”? Challenging the deficit view of design students. Paper Session at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting 2015, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6(11), 38–46.Google Scholar
- Conanan, D. M., & Pinkard, N. (2001). Students’ perceptions of giving and receiving design critiques in an online learning environment. In European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (euro-cscl) (pp. 22–24).Google Scholar
- Easterday, M. W., Rees Lewis, D., Fitzpatrick, C., & Gerber, E. M. (2014). Computer supported novice group critique. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 405–414). New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2600889.
- Freeman, M., & McKenzie, J. (2014). Aligning peer assessment with peer learning for large classes: The case for an online self and peer assessment system. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & J. Sampson (Eds.), Peer learning in higher education: Learning from & with each other (pp. 156–169). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
- Gray, C. M. (2013a). Emergent critique in informal design talk: Reflections of surface, pedagogical, and epistemological features in an HCI studio. In Critique 2013: An international conference reflecting on creative practice in art, architecture, and design (pp. 341–355). Adelaide, South Australia: University of South Australia.Google Scholar
- Gray, C. M. (2014). Living in two worlds: A critical ethnography of academic and proto-professional interactions in a human-computer interaction design studio. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
- Gray, C. M. (2016). Emergent views of studio. In E. Boling, R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, & K. Campbell (Eds.) Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases (pp. 271–281). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Gray, C. M., & Howard, C. D. (2015). “Why are they not responding to critique?”: A student-centered construction of the crit. In LearnxDesign: The 3rd international conference for design education researchers and prek-16 design educators (pp. 1680–1700). Aalto, FI: Aalto University.Google Scholar
- Gray, C. M., & Smith, K. M. (2016). Critical views of studio. In E. Boling, R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, & K. Campbell (Eds.), Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases (pp. 260–270). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Howard, C. D., & Gray, C. M. (2014, October). Learner v. expert design talk: A content analysis of the discourse of designerly talk. In DTRS’10: 10th annual Design Thinking Research Symposium. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.Google Scholar
- Klebesadel, H. (2008). Reframing studio art production and critique. New museum theory and practice (pp. 247–265). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Klebesadel, H., & Kornetsky, L. (2009). Critique as signature pedagogy in the arts. In R. Gurung, N. Chick, & A. Haynie (Eds.), Exploring signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind (pp. 99–120). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
- Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
- Luther, K., Tolentino, J. -L., Wu, W., Pavel, A., Bailey, B. Agrawala, M. et al. (2015). Structuring, aggregating, and evaluating crowdsourced design critique. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 473–485). New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675283.
- Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning theory and practice: 10 years on (pp. 412–424). Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff & Learning Development.Google Scholar
- Oak, A. (1998). Assessment and understanding: An analysis of talk in the design studio critique. In Engendering communication: Proceedings from the fifth Berkeley women and language conference. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
- Parnell, R., Sara, R., Doidge, C., & Parsons, M. L. (2012). The crit: An architecture student’s handbook (2nd ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
- Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Schön, D. A. (1990). The design process. In V. A. Howard (Ed.), Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard’s philosophy of education research center (pp. 111–141). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Gauvain & M. Cole (Eds.), Mind and society (pp. 29–36). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
- Xu, A., & Bailey, B. (2012). What do you think?: A case study of benefit, expectation, and interaction in a large online critique community. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 295–304). New York, NY: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145252.