Top

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Published in:

24-09-2018

Democratizing assessment practices through multimodal critique in the design classroom

Author: Colin M. Gray

Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Issue 4/2019

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

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.

previous article Effects of pre-college variables and first-year engineering students’ experiences on academic achievement and retention: a structural model

next article Strategic knowledge-based approach for CAD modelling learning

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

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

Barrett, T. (1988). A comparison of the goals of studio professors conducting critiques and art education goals for teaching criticism. Studies in Art Education, 30(1), 22–27.CrossRef

Barrett, T. (2000). Studio critiques of student art: As they are, as they could be with mentoring. Theory Into Practice, 39(1), 29–35.CrossRef

Blair, B. (2007). At the end of a huge crit in the summer, it was “crap”—I’d worked really hard but all she said was “fine” and I was gutted. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.5.2.83_1.CrossRef

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.

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(2), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5.CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9254-5.CrossRef

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6(11), 38–46.

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).

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.

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.

Gray, C. M. (2013b). Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 12(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.12.2.195_1.CrossRef

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.

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.

Gray, C. M., & Howard, C. D. (2014). Designerly talk in non-pedagogical social spaces. Journal of Learning Design, 7(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v7i1.153.CrossRef

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.

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.

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

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.

Klebesadel, H. (2008). Reframing studio art production and critique. New museum theory and practice (pp. 247–265). New York: Wiley.

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.

Kou, Y., & Gray, C. M. (2017). Supporting distributed critique through interpretation and sense-making in an online creative community. Proceedings of the ACM: Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134695.

Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press.

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.

Morton, J., & O’Brien, D. (2006). Selling your design: Oral communication pedagogy in design education. Communication Education, 54(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500076885.CrossRef

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.

Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D., & Yi-Luen Do, E. (2012). 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.CrossRef

Parnell, R., Sara, R., Doidge, C., & Parsons, M. L. (2012). The crit: An architecture student’s handbook (2nd ed.). Oxford: Architectural Press.

Purchase, H. C. (2000). Learning about interface design through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 341–352.CrossRef

Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3), 191–205.CrossRef

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

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.

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.CrossRef

Uluoglu, B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, 21(1), 33–58.CrossRef

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.

Webster, H. (2008). Architectural education after Schön: Cracks, blurs, boundaries and beyond. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 3(2), 63–74.CrossRef

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.

Title: Democratizing assessment practices through multimodal critique in the design classroom
Author: Colin M. Gray
Publication date: 24-09-2018
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9471-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Problematizing spatial literacy within the school curriculum

Transforming early concepts with Design Heuristics

How innovativeness and handedness affect learning performance of engineering students?

Strategic knowledge-based approach for CAD modelling learning

Interdisciplinary: challenges and opportunities for design education

Surveying preschool teachers’ use of digital tablets: general and technology education related findings

Premium Partner