Alone in a Group Ten Characteristics of the Live Online Critique

Year 2022, , 5 - 19, 10.07.2022

Jolanda D. Morkel Johannes C. Cronjé

https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1087021

Abstract

The design critique or crit, as it is commonly known, is a prominent educational practice that involves a design tutor guiding and prompting a student to develop design expertise. Although it has become a contested practice often criticized for its teacher-dominated approaches and asymmetrical power relations, it remains at the heart of architectural education. This paper is focused on an undergraduate blended architecture studio in South Africa, that allows students to study whilst working, through online learning engagements, combined with occasional on-campus blocks and office mentorship. This experiment was conducted well ahead of the recent pandemic which led to a sudden online pivot of educational spaces and practices. It explores the characteristics of the live online crit, mediated through a webinar platform. The research instruments include online surveys completed by students, graduates, and design tutors, as well as a focus group interview conducted with the graduates only. Through a thematic analysis of the data, we discovered ten characteristics of the live online crit namely that it is internet-reliant, participant-invisible, ubiquitous, media-intensive, multi-communicational, formal, accessible, work-focused, resource-saving, and inclusive. These results are timeous, given the current reliance on live online learning practices, in response to the regular need for social distancing.

Keywords

Design critique, Online crit, Webinar, Architectural education, Blended learning

Supporting Institution

National Research Foundation (NRF), South African Technology Network (SATN).

Thanks

This article is based on the doctoral research conducted by the first author. We wish to thank students and colleagues for their valuable contributions to this research. The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) towards this research is acknowledged, as well as support provided through a writing workshop in Durban, by the South African Technology Network (SATN).

References

• Anderson, L., Fyvie, B., Koritko, B., McCarthy, K., Paz, S.M., Rizzuto, M., Tremblay, R. and Sawyers, U., (2006). Best practices in synchronous conferencing moderation. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 7(1).
• Anthony, K.H., (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio.
• Banou, S. and Tahsiri, M., (2021). Catalyst Pedagogies and the Pandemic Displacement of Architectural Education. Charrette, 7(1), pp.1-13.
• Bailey, R.O.N., (2005). The Digital Design Coach Enhancing Design Conversations in Architectural Education.
• Bates. (2018). Teaching in a Digital Age. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.tonybates.ca/teaching-in-a-digital-age/. [Accessed 20 February 2018].
• Bender, D.M. and Vredevoogd, J.D., (2006). Using online education technologies to support studio instruction. Educational Technology & Society, 9(4), pp.114-122.
• Blair, B., (2006). Perception interpretation impact: an examination of the learning value of formative feedback to students through the design studio critique (Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London).
• Braun, V. and Clarke, V., (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101.
• Creswell, J.W., (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design.
• Cronjé, J.C. (2016). ‘Learning Technology in Higher Education’, in Rushby, N. and Surry, D. (eds), The Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons, pp. 131-144.
• Doidge, C., Sara, R. and Parnell, R., (2007). The crit: an architecture student's handbook. Routledge.
• Gachago, D., Morkel, J., Hitge, L., van Zyl, I. and Ivala, E., (2017). Developing eLearning champions: a design thinking approach. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), p.30.
• Goldschmidt, G., Casakin, H., Avidan, Y. and Ronen, O., (2014). Three studio critiquing cultures: Fun follows function or function follows fun?. DTRS 10: Design Thinking Research Symposium 2014 – Purdue University
• Hasirci, D. & Demirkan, H., (2007). Understanding the Effects of Cognition in Creative Decision Making: A Creativity Model for Enhancing the Design Studio Process. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2–3), pp.259–271. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10400410701397362.
• Hassanpour, B., Utaberta, N., and Zaharim, A., (2010). Redefining Critique Session as an Assessment Tool in Architecture Design Studio Class., Wseas Trans. Adv. Eng. Educ., Issue, 9, pp.287-298.
• Hitge, L.M., (2016). Cognitive apprenticeship in architecture education: Using a scaffolding tool to support conceptual design (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Town).
• Koch, A., (2002). The redesign of studio culture: A report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. American Institute of Architecture Students.
• Kuhn, S., (2001). Learning from the architecture studio: Implications for project-based pedagogy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(4/5), pp.349-352.
• Laurillard, D., (2008). Technology enhanced learning as a tool for pedagogical innovation. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3‐4), pp.521-533.
• Lotz, N., Jones, D. and Holden, G., (2015). Social engagement in online design pedagogies. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Van de Zande, Robin; Bohemia, Erik and Digranes, Ingvild eds.), Aalto University, pp. 1645–1668.
• Lowenthal, P.R., Dunlap, J.C. and Snelson, C., (2017). Live Synchronous Web Meetings in Asynchronous Online Courses: Reconceptualizing Virtual Office Hours. Online Learning.
• Lymer, G., (2010). The work of critique in architectural education. Department of Education, Communication and Learning; Institutionen för pedagogik, kommunikation och lärande.
• Maftei, L. and Harty, C., (2015). Designing in caves: using immersive visualisations in design practice. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 9(3), pp.53- 75.
• McCarthy, C., (2011). Is the design crit worth keeping? Testing the validity of the traditional crit and potential alternatives. Deakin Research Online, p.246.
• Morkel, J., (2013). Open Architecture – Authentic education for the future. Architecture South Africa, (64), pp. 19-20.
• Morkel, J., Delport, H.E., Burton, L.O., Olweny, M.O. Feast, S. (2021). Towards an ecosystem-of- learning for architectural education: Reflecting on a network of six pedagogical clusters. Charrette Volume 7, Number 1, Spring 2021 (1 March) pp. 15-40(26). Catalyst Pedagogies & the Pandemic Displacement of Architectural Education https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/arched/char/2021/00000007/0000000 1
• Mitgang, L. D. (1999) ‘Back to School: Architects Sound Off on 10 Critical Issues Facing Architectural Education’. Architectural Record, Vol. 187, No. 9, p. 112.
• Ng, K.C., (2007). Replacing face-to-face tutorials by synchronous online technologies: Challenges and pedagogical implications. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(1).
• Ng'ambi, D., Brown, C., Bozalek, V., Gachago, D. and Wood, D., (2016). Technology enhanced teaching and learning in South African higher education–A rearview of a 20 year journey. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), pp.843-858.
• Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M.D. and Do, E.Y.L., (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), pp.302-325.
• Osborne, L. & Crowther, P. (2011). Butterpaper, sweat & tears: the affective dimension of engaging students during the architectural critique. In Association of Architecture Schools of Australasia 2011, 18 – 21 September 2011, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC.Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M.D. and Do, E.Y.L., 2013. A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), pp.302-325.
• Percy, C., (2004). Critical absence versus critical engagement. Problematics of the crit in design learning and teaching. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2(3), pp.143-154.
• Poulsen, L. and Morkel, J., (2016). Open Architecture: Part-time Blended Study Model. Architecture South Africa, (78), pp. 28-33.
• Quinlan, A., Corkery, L. and Marshall, N., (2007). Positioning the Design Tutor’s presence in the Design Studio for successful student design learning. In Connected 2007 International Conference on Design Education, pp.1-6.
• Republic of South Africa. (2019). Inquiry and Equity Ownership by Historically Disadvantaged Groups and the Application of the ICT Sector Code in the ICT Sector. Government Gazette no. 42234, 15 February 2019.
• Rushby, N. and Surry, D., (2016). The Wiley Handbook of Learning Technology (Vol. 1). First Edition. Edited by Nick Rushby and Daniel W Surrey. John Wiley & Sons.
• Schön, D.A., (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. 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), pp.51–62.
• Shulman, L.S., (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), pp.52- 59.
• Smith, C., (2011). Understanding Students’ Views of the Crit Assessment. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 6(1), pp.44–67.
• UIA. (2017). UIA.[ONLINE]Available at: http://www.uia-architectes.org/sites/default/files/charte-en-b.pdf. [Accessed 20 February 2018].
• Voulgarelis, H. & Morkel, J., (2010). The importance of physically built working models in design teaching of undergraduate architectural students. Connected 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Design Education, (July), pp.1–8.
• Webster, H., (2004). Facilitating critically reflective learning: excavating the role of the design tutor in architectural education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2(3), pp.101-111.
• Webster, H., (2005). The architectural review: A study of ritual, acculturation and reproduction in architectural education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 4(3), pp.265-282.
• Zoumenou, V., Sigman-Grant, M., Coleman, G., Malekian, F., Zee, J.M., Fountain, B.J. and Marsh, A., (2015). Identifying best practices for an interactive webinar. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 107(2), pp.62-69.