As I approached the first set text reading, prior to our first workshops, I was full of optimism and enthusiasm for the task in hand, and feeling pretty confident that it wouldn’t be too taxing or take too long. The literature set was:
“The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy” (MacDonald & Michela, 2019)
A few paragraphs in, however, and I began to realise the enormity of this one, seemingly simple task. I had clearly underestimated the command of academic language required and the patience necessary to read the paper several times in the hope of understanding it! I was rapidly appraising my own professional development to date, and realising the need to adopt a different approach. This left me feeling a little vulnerable, but determined to enhance and develop my speed and reading skills in order to keep up.
Getting back to “the design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy” my interpretation of this complicated text is as follows.
The critique, or “crit” forms part of the design studio ecosystem, and is understood to have an impact on student development, regardless of historical and cultural factors. The critique itself is an examination or evaluation of an idea, phenomenon or artefact and is the primary method by which instructors evaluate a students learning, knowledge and ability. The critique, which can be undertaken informally in class or in tutorials, or more formally during formative or summative assessment, is used to communicate knowledge and provide a framework for professional development.
However, critiques can also cultivate fear and anxiety – it is important to note that each student may react to such an evaluation in a different way, and to adapt techniques accordingly. Effective, and empathetic methods of implementation are key to creating a positive environment and outcomes.
In the design studio, most critique is verbal, unstructured and unpredictable, requiring instructors to respond and exercise judgement rapidly and articulately. It is both an art form and a practical demonstration of teaching practice which, in my opinion, requires skills that can be learned and enhanced over time.
My own critiques in teaching have taken a variety of forms, including verbal one to ones, presentations and feedback (including peer to peer) in class, formative assessments and group tutorials, as well as summative assessment with written feedback. I have found all to be useful in understanding student strengths and weaknesses, and how to then tailor my approach to help each individual to achieve the best possible outcome.
I have generally found that critiques work better face to face, rather than written or online. Where a student is struggling, I have often added in an extra tutorial to go through their written feedback face to face, for example, to ensure that they have a full understanding of how to improve their submissions.
Understanding the social practices in which people engage are foundational to the human experience. The “goods” of a practice was also a new concept to me, and as I understand it, are the aims that push the participants, our students, to accomplish something. Essentially, in relation to teaching practice, the “goods” relate to the creation of situations that promote learning.
Such a situation may then be an endeavour to encourage students to think and act differently to achieve better results, to propose and challenge participants to ask new questions, define new possibilities and look for innovative techniques and interpretation in their studies.
A critique might, therefore, be one way to encourage the flow of ideas, and develop more meaningful relationships with students. It is one approach, within a broad variety of learning and teaching techniques, that drive motivation and engagement, ensuring that all students flourish.
It is important to acknowledge that every student will progress at different rates, and at different levels; creating the right environment, a “safe space” for them to open up and participate, to develop their own ideas and solutions to the often complex and conflicting problems that they may be faced with. Delivering a challenging and cohesive balance between academic excellence and readiness for the working world is key to engagement and attainment.
The reading undertaken was followed up with a healthy debate, during our first workshops, looking at what equal participation looks like in the classroom, and discussion about how we can “mix it up” to encourage collaboration. We considered the concept of dynamic movement, and how this can influence learning and the uptake of information. Having been introduced to the concept of the “walking meeting” by a friend of mine who is the founder of Wellity, one of the UK’s fastest growing facilitators of workplace wellbeing, we all agreed that there may also be a place for the “walking tutorial”.
In summary, variety and an adaptable approach seem to be key, with elements of critique, debate, challenge, group work, equal access and participation, and peer to peer learning all playing a part in the delivery of engaging content, and ultimately, student attainment. My own teaching practice will benefit from the knowledge and broader understanding that I have gained, and ultimately this will be borne out in my face to face sessions by delivering using a variety of different techniques, to create an element of surprise, hopefully excitement about the content and improved engagement.
References
Gibbs (1988), ‘Reflective Learning Cycle’ via University of Cumbria. Available at: https://my.cumbria.ac.uk/media/MyCumbria/Documents/ReflectiveCycleGibbs.pdf Accessed 14.02.25
Macfarlane, Bruce and Gourlay, Lesley (2009), ‘The Reflection Game: Enacting the Penitent Self’, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol.14, No.4, p455-459. Available at: https://www-tandfonline-com.arts.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/13562510903050244#d1e232 Accessed 14.02.2025
McDonald, Jason K. and Michela, Esther (2019), ‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy’, Brigham Young University, USA Accessed 14.02.2025