Contrasting the use of tools for presentation and critique: Some cases from architectural education

Article

Abstract

This study investigates video recordings of design reviews in architectural education, focusing on how presentations and discussions of designs are contingent on the specific tools employed. In the analyzed recordings, three different setups are utilized: traditional posters, digital slide-show technologies, and combinations of the two. This range of different setups provides a set of contrasts that make visible the role of technologies in shaping the ways in which the reviews are conducted. The analysis is structured in three themes. First, we examine the sequential organization of digital presentations in relation to the spatial structure of poster-based presentations. Second, the different ways in which shared attention is established in digital, paper-based, and hybrid presentation practices are analyzed. Third, we address part-whole relations—how details in presented materials are put in relation to the overarching project or the presentation as a whole. Taken together, the analyses suggest that the detailed organization of the design review is transformed in subtle yet consequential ways through the introduction of digital slide-show technologies. These transformations are consequential not only locally, for the design review itself, but also for the instructive work that is accomplished through this practice. We conclude by discussing some implications for design, arguing that an increased awareness of how the practice is influenced by the different setups might be key for the proper adaptation of presentation technologies to particular purposes.

Keywords

Architectural education Design reviews Ethnomethodology Video analysis Presentation practice and technology 

References

  1. Adams, C. (2006). PowerPoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony, K. H. (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.Google Scholar
  3. Baecker, R., Harrison, S., Buxton, B., Poltrock, S., & Churchill, E. (2008). Media spaces: Past visions, current realities, future promise. In M. Czerwinsky, A. M. Lind & D. S. Tan (Eds.), Extended Abstracts CHI 2008 (pp. 2245–2248). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  4. Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (2009). Studies of work and the workplace in HCI: Concepts and techniques. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar
  5. Cakir, M., & Stahl, G. (2009). Interaction analysis of dual-interaction CSCL environments. In C. O’Malley, D. Suthers, P. Reimann & A. Dimitracopoulou (Eds.), Computer-supported collaborative learning practices: CSCL2009 conference proceedings (pp. 3–12). Rhodes, Greece: ISLS.Google Scholar
  6. Crabtree, A., Hemmings, T., & Rodden, T. (2003). The social construction of displays: Coordinate displays and ecologically distributed networks. In K. O’Hara, M. Perry, E. Churchill & D. Russell (Eds.), Public and situated displays: Social and interactional aspects of shared display technologies (pp. 170–190). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  7. Ekström, A., Lindwall, O., & Säljö, R. (2009). Questions, instructions, and modes of listening in the joint production of guided action: A study of student-teacher collaboration in handicraft education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(5), 497–514.Google Scholar
  8. Gaver, W. W. (1992). The affordances of media spaces for collaboration. In J. Turner & R. Kraut (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCW 1992 (pp. 17–24). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Good, L., & Bederson, B. B. (2002). Zoomable user interfaces as a medium for slide show presentations. Information Visualization, 1(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In S. Duncan, J. Cassel & E. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimensions of language (pp. 195–212). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  13. Gutwin, C., & Penner, R. (2002). Improving interpretation of remote gestures with telepointer traces. In L. Terveen & D. Wixon (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCW 2002 (pp. 49–57). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanks, W. F. (1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 209–246). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Heath, C., & Luff, P. K. (1992). Media space and communicative asymmetries: Preliminary observations of video mediated interaction. Human Computer Interaction, 7(3), 315–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Heath, C., Knoblauch, H., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology and social interaction: The emergence of workplace studies. British Journal of Sociology, 51(2), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Sharing the tools of the trade: The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holman, D., Stojadinovic, P., Karrer, T., & Borchers, J. (2006). Fly: An organic presentation tool. In G. Olson & R. Jeffries (Eds.), Extended abstracts CHI 2006 (pp. 863–868). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ivarsson, J., Linderoth, J., & Säljö, R. (2009). Representations in practices. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), Handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 201–212). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription notation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jurow, S. A., Hall, R., & Ma, J. Y. (2008). Expanding disciplinary expertise of a middle school mathematics classroom: Re-contextualizing student models in conversations with visiting specialists. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 338–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kjeldsen, J. E. (2006). The rhetoric of powerpoint. International Journal of Media, Technology, and Lifelong Learning, 2(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  24. Knoblauch, H. (2008). The performance of knowledge: Pointing and knowledge in powerpoint presentations. Cultural Sociology, 2(1), 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuzuoka, H., Kosaka, J., Yamazaki, K., Suga, Y., Yamazaki, A., Luff, P., et al. (2004). Mediating dual ecologies. In J. D. Herbsleb & G. M. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCW 2004 (pp. 477–486). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LeBaron, C. (1998). Building communication: Architectural gestures and the embodiment of new ideas. Unpublished dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  27. LeBaron, C., & Streeck, J. (2000). Gestures, knowledge, and the world. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Gestures in action, language, and culture (pp. 118–138). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lindwall, O., Lymer, G., & Ivarsson, J. (2008). Att ge och ta kritik: Examination i arkitektutbildning som hybrid aktivitet [Delivering and receiving criticism: Assessment in architectural education as a hybrid activity]. In K. Borg & V. Lindberg (Eds.), Kunskapande, kommunikation och bedömning i gestaltande utbildning [Knowing, communication and assessment in aesthetic education] (pp. 199–211). Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Yamazaki, K., & Yamashita, J. (2006). Handling documents and discriminating objects in hybrid spaces. In R. Grinter, T. Rodden, P. Aoki, E. Cutrell, R. Jeffries & G. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of CHI 2006 (pp. 561–570). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  30. Lymer, G. (2009). Demonstrating professional vision: The work of critique in architectural education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(2), 145–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell, S. E. (1996). Institutions, individuals and talk: The construction of identity in fine art. Journal of Art and Design Education, 15(2), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murphy, K. M. (2004). Imagination as joint activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(4), 267–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Murphy, K. M. (2005). Collaborative imagining: The interactive use of gestures, talk, and graphic representation in architectural practice. Semiotica, 156(1), 113–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillabaum, S. (2005). Calibrating photographic vision through multiple semiotic resources. Semiotica, 156(1–4), 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Gestures: Their role in teaching and learning. Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Shaffer, D. W. (2002). Design, collaboration, and computation: The design studio as a model for computer-supported collaboration in mathematics. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 197–222). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  39. Stark, D., & Paravel, V. (2008). PowerPoint in public: Digital technologies and the new morphology of presentation. Theory, Culture & Society, 25(5), 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevens, R. (2002). Divisions of labor in school and in the workplace: Comparing computer- and paper-supported activities across settings. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 229–258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Tufte, E. R. (2003). The cognitive style of powerpoint. Cheshire, CT: Graphics.Google Scholar
  42. Vallance, M., & Towndrow, P. A. (2007). Towards the “informed use” of information and communication technology in education: A response to Adams’ “Powerpoint, habits of mind, and classroom culture.” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(2), 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilkin, M. (2000). Reviewing the review: An account of a research investigation of the “crit.” In D. Nicol & S. Pilling (Eds.), Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism (pp. 100–107). London & New York: Spon.Google Scholar
  44. Zemel, A., Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., & Feltovich, P. (2008). “What are we missing?” Usability’s indexical ground. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 17(1), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of GothenburgGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations