Understanding Students’ Views of the Crit Assessment

Smith, Charlie

doi:10.11120/jebe.2011.06010044

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it has been criticised and described as – perhaps – not the most optimum teaching method, it remains as the main ritual in becoming an architect. Some studies indicate that the common critique sessions are the main source of dissatisfaction among architecture students and that the process needs new adaptative approaches (Anthony 1991; Smith 2011). Nevertheless, Lewis (2013) argues that the process of having one’s hard work criticised in front of one’s peers is a rite of passage for all architects.…”

Section: Design Studio and Virtualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, the pedagogical body of architecture is reluctant to implement any change in the design critique process (crit). Smith (2011) calls this ironic, arguing that the nature of architecture education is the empowerment of creativity and change. Perhaps, in the short window of time that virtuality was imposed on the design studio pedagogy by the COVID‐19 lockdown, the hidden potential of VDS would emerge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mandatory Virtual Design Studio for All: Exploring the Transformations of Architectural Education amidst the Global Pandemic

Iranmanesh¹,

Onur²

2021

Int J Art Design Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Virtual design studio (VDS) has been a part of the discourse of architectural pedagogy for the past two decades. VDS has been showcased as a potential educational tool in schools of architecture often in controlled, pre‐designed experiments. However, the global COVID‐19 pandemic has forced most schools to move their design studios into virtual space. This article aims to explore the potential advantages and shortcomings of VDS during the COVID‐19 quarantine from the perspective of students in a department of architecture. The study investigates three aspects of VDS namely, participating students’ evaluation of the virtual studio experience, the effectiveness of VDS in achieving the studio’s expected learning outcomes and the evaluation process for final design projects. Some 360 students from eight consecutive design studios participated in the study. The results indicate improvement in students’ ability to conduct independent research and in learning new computer‐aided design (CAD) software. Furthermore, the study finds VDS to be much more applicable for third‐ and fourth‐year students. The results also show a significant decline in background informal peer learning among students. Further studies are needed to address the implementation of a more immersive social experience in VDS.

show abstract

Section: Design Studio and Virtualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mandatory Virtual Design Studio for All: Exploring the Transformations of Architectural Education amidst the Global Pandemic

Iranmanesh¹,

Onur²

2021

Int J Art Design Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The need to investigate the design review in architectural education was made more apparent through studies that made use of critical or ‘alternative’ methodological approaches, as done by Anthony (1991) and Shannon (1995), who made use of feminist methodological approaches in their studies. Smith (2011) took a different approach, making use of ethnographic methodology geared to allow students views to surface. Emerging from these ‘alternative’ approaches, were evident contradictions; while the design review is regarded as dialogical, ‘… one of the parties speaks from a position of authority’ (Osborne and Crowther, 2011: 1).…”

Section: The Design Review In Architecture Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students’ views of the architectural design review: The design crit in East Africa

Olweny

2019

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The design studio and the associated design review can be regarded as the signature pedagogy of architectural education, where students garner the essence of what it means to be an architect. Here, novices are transformed into architects through the acquisition of architectural cultural capital. This paper investigates the design review in East African schools of architecture from a student’s perspective, garnered from focus group discussions carried out in five schools of architecture, and corroborated through observations. Findings indicate challenges in the design review, vis-à-vis the broader goals and objectives of architectural education. However, it did uncover attempts at change, via a ‘back seat instructor approach’, for example, breaking down the stereotype of the design review as a hostile environment for students. The paper concludes with a few recommendations to help recast this signature pedagogical approach as a truly discursive environment.

show abstract

“…Blythman et al (2007) suggest that students seeing tutors having contradictory positions and disagreements in crits is important as it demonstrates that there is more than one solution to a given brief. However, Smith (2011) explains that as the purpose of the crit is to provide feedback that contributes to learning, students should not be left confused by such differences of opinion and should finish the session with clear strategies to progress their work. Students easily picked up these advantages of the crit, and they actually preferred the process to having exams like other disciplines:…”

Section: The Culture Of Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing Autonomous and Responsible Learners

Maani

2020

EAAE ACP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the design studio, which is the core of architectural education, is to educate the students to understand the nature of design, to think independently, to act in “designerly ways”, and to become “reflective practitioners”. The student must take on a new mode of learning, in which the main way to learn is by doing, and in which there is no one correct way to approach the design problem. The previous aspects associated with the studio — together with the open-ended, exploratory, and iterative nature of the design process — place the student at the center of the learning experience. Tutors in this context are facilitators of learning, rather than knowledge experts, and are expected to pay attention to the challenges that face students in adapting to this new learning environment and in assuming a new learner identity. Hence, this study employs longitudinal mixed approaches to uncover an emic perspective of the ways architecture students conceptualize learning in their first year and what distinguishes them from students in other disciplines.

show abstract

Understanding Students’ Views of the Crit Assessment

Cited by 15 publications

References 10 publications

Mandatory Virtual Design Studio for All: Exploring the Transformations of Architectural Education amidst the Global Pandemic

Mandatory Virtual Design Studio for All: Exploring the Transformations of Architectural Education amidst the Global Pandemic

Students’ views of the architectural design review: The design crit in East Africa

Developing Autonomous and Responsible Learners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About