Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Perceived Value of Informal, Peer Critique in the Instructional Design Studio

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate how instructional design students perceive the informal, peer critique as an influence in their studio education. Our participants were students enrolled in beginning and advanced studio courses in the department of Instructional Psychology and Technology at Brigham Young University. Groups of 2–3 beginning students were assigned a reviewer from the advanced course, who then led critiques over two face-to-face class sessions with their assigned groups. Students perceived the critique experience to be helpful, although beginning students perceived greater value than did the advanced (possibly due to the time advanced students took to build confidence in the beginners). Students also reported ways in which the critique experience could have been improved, with the most common suggestions being to hold critique sessions more frequently and for longer periods of time. We conclude by discussing the role of informal, peer critiques in the instructional design studio, including how they could complement other forms of feedback that students receive. We also discuss how our findings could contribute towards future research into the value of critique in the instructional design studio environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2013). Introduction: Making the move to peer learning. In D. Boud, R. Cohen, & J. Sampson (Eds.), Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other (pp. 1–17). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2013). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating peer review as a systemic pedagogy for developing the design knowledge, skills, and dispositions of novice instructional design students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9421-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, K., Beale, C., & Lynas, E. (2013). A chaotic intervention: creativity and peer learning in design education. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(2), 146–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K. (2014). In education we all want to be nice: Lessons learned from a multidisciplinary design studio. In B. Hokanson & A. S. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio (pp. 57–73). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K. (2016). What is 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. 248–259). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K., & Brandt, C. (2012). The "right kind of telling": knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 839–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, S.-H. (2010). Students’ knowledge sources and knowledge sharing in the design studio—an exploratory study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2, 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9061-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2010). The studio experience at the University of Georgia: an example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 755–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conanan, D. M., & Pinkard, N. (2001). Students’ perceptions of giving and receiving design critiques in an online learning environment. Paper presented at the European conference on computer-supported collaborative learning (EURO-CSCL).

  • Dannels, D. P. (2005). Performing tribal rituals: a genre analysis of “crits” in design studios. Communication Education, 54(2), 136–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500213165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannels, D. P., & Martin, K. N. (2008). Critiquing critiques: a genre analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(2), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651907311923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannels, D. P., Gaffney, A. H., & Martin, K. N. (2008). Beyond content, deeper than delivery: what critique feedback reveals about communication expectations in design education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2008.020212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2016). Evolving into 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. 137–151). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M. (2013a). Discursive structures of informal critique in an HCI design studio. Paper presented at the Nordes 2013: Experiments in Design Research, Copehnagen, Denmark/Malmö, Sweden, Copenhagen, Denmark.

  • Gray, C. M. (2013b). Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 22(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.12.2.195_1.

    Article  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: Routledge.

    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: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C. M., & Cox, C. (2008). What is design knowledge and how do we teach it? In C. DiGiano, S. V. Goldman, & M. Choroset (Eds.), Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools (pp. 19–35). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokanson, B. (2012). The design critique as a model for distributed learning. In L. Moller & J. Huett (Eds.), The next generation of distance education: Unconstrained learning (pp. 71–83). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huet, G., Culley, S. J., McMahon, C. A., & Fortin, C. (2007). Making sense of engineering design review activities. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 21(3), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060407000261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurado, J. A. (2011). Group projects in interiior design studio classes: peer feedback benefits. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 103(1), 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowlton, D. S. (2016). Design studios in instructional design and technology: what are the possibilities? TechTrends, 60(4), 350–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowlton, D. S., Johnson, L., Thomeczek, M., Liu, Y., & Liumsden, J. N. (2016). Juries as innovation in an instructional design and technology program: a saga of continuous improvement efforts. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(3), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

  • McDonnell, J. (2016). Scaffolding practices: a study of design practitioner engagement in design education. Design Studies, 45(A), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.12.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D., & Do, E. Y.-L. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), 302–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, P. J., West, R. E., & Warr, M. (2015). Innovating how we teach collaborative design through studio-based pedagogy. In M. A. Orey & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 39, pp. 147–163). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salama, A. M., & Wilkinson, N. (2007). Introduction: Legacies for the future of design studio pedagogy. In A. M. Salama & N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future (pp. 3–8). Gateshead: Urban International Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: a systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrand, T., & Eliason, J. (2012). Feedback practices and signature pedagogies: what can the liberal arts learn from the design critique? Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.590977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the oxford design studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy. WCER Working Paper No. 2003–11. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  • Smith, K. M. (2015). Conditions influencing the development of design expertise: as identified in interior design student accounts. Design Studies, 36, 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiessen, M. (2017). I don’t know, I just like it: exploring how design students think about criticism. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 16(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.16.2.145_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600680836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, H. (2006). Power, freedom and resistance: excavating the design jury. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 25(3), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2006.00495.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (2013). A practice-centered approach to instructional design. In J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, S. E. Smaldino, & M. Herring (Eds.), Learning, problem solving, and mind tools: Essays in honor of David H. Jonassen (pp. 35–54). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., & Kurzel, F. (2008). Engaging students in reflective practice through a process of formative peer review and peer assessment. Paper presented at the ATN Assessment Conference 2008: Engaging Students in Assessment.

  • Woolf, N. H., & Quinn, J. (2001). Evaluating peer review in an introductory instructional design course. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(3), 20–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamberlan, L., & Wilson, S. E. (2015). Developing an embedded peer tutor program in design studio to support first year design students. Journal of Peer Learning, 8(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamberlan, L., & Wilson, S. E. (2017). “Conversation leading to progress”: student perceptions of peer tutors’ contribution to enhancing creativity and collaboration in a first year design studio. Journal of Peer Learning, 10(1), 59–75.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brigham Young University, 150-E MCKB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Jason K. McDonald, Peter J. Rich & Nicholas B. Gubler

Authors
  1. Jason K. McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter J. Rich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicholas B. Gubler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason K. McDonald.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Jason K. McDonald is employed by Brigham Young University, the university under study.

Peter J. Rich is employed by Brigham Young University, the university under study.

Nicholas B. Gubler is a student at Brigham Young University, the university under study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McDonald, J.K., Rich, P.J. & Gubler, N.B. The Perceived Value of Informal, Peer Critique in the Instructional Design Studio. TechTrends 63, 149–159 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0302-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0302-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation