‘Peer Critique’ in Debate: A Pedagogical Tool for Teaching Architectural Design Studio

Abstract

Post-digital architectural education aims to empower future architects by developing open-mindedness and technical skills for the design of non-standard spatial configurations. Students can learn through exploration and experimentation, using three-dimensional graphic design software to generate initial designs and quality feedback, with a mixed model of peers and panel judges assessing final projects. Ratings of individual contributions and performance are commonly found in literature on peer assessment, but qualitative comments from peers can also provide good information on strengths and weaknesses. This study shows that peer critique in the form of debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for educators to provide quality feedback to the presenting group. This paper explores how architecture students responded to this method in a design studio for a master's degree in architecture in a university in Hong Kong. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and subsequently analysed using the coding system of qualitative software NVivo 11. The responses of the students were positive, although they experienced differences in feedback from different stakeholders.

Exploring the impact of self-regulated learning intervention on students' strategy use and performance in a design studio course

“…Dunbar et al ( 2018 ) found that collaborative learning environments promote social self-efficacy, which in turn promotes academic performance. Peer interaction in the design studio contributes to a collaborative learning structure (Wang, 2010 ) so that students become proactive, self-regulating learners (Crolla et al, 2019 ).…”

Differences in self-regulated learning strategies among industrial design students: A convergent mixed-methods study

“…In this study, we followed a convergent mixed-methods procedure (see Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) undertaking quantitative and qualitative investigation concurrently. We integrated the results through merging analysis and interpreted them to gain a realistic and holistic understanding of students' strategy use.…”

“…Clearly et al (2012) highlight multifaceted evaluation as the most useful method for increasing self-regulation strategies knowledge (e.g., Baldan Babayigit & Guven, 2020;Coertjens et al, 2016;Foerst et al, 2017;Hendriks et al, 2020;Jansen et al, 2020;Pekrun et al, 2002;van Laer & Elen, 2020). Mixed methods approach offers advantages for SRL studies in compensating for missing data and confirming overlapping data (see Plano Clark, 2019). This study aimed to identify design students' SRL strategy use, taking advantage of both questionnaires and interviews as mixed methods.…”

Effective Critique through Affective Peer Engagement

“…Other scholars of design‐related disciplines mention involvement of peers in the critique process, but primarily in the context of instructor guidance (Belluigi, 2016; Budge et al, 2013; Dannels & Martin, 2008; Healy, 2016). Similar research includes peer feedback, or peer critique, as a method and even suggests potential positive impacts associated with peer integration (Anthony, 1991; Crolla et al, 2019; Lawrence & Zollinger, 2015; Megahed, 2018; Oh et al, 2013; Utaberta et al, 2010). Smith (2011) specifically stated that “student‐led crits have been proven to facilitate higher‐order discussion than traditional ones” (p. 58).…”