Students’ Perspective of Design Studio Assessment: An Experience in Bangladesh

Abstract

Architecture education has been based on the design studio model focusing on learning by doing. In this academic program, critique is a vital component and inseparable from studio learning. Although widely practiced, critique has been a neglected area in design education and is often criticized for affecting the students’ learning experience. Using a grounded theory approach and mixed-method analysis, this article studies the student’s perspective of intermediate assessment and final evaluation of design studio courses in the form of desk critique and jury respectively with a case study of the Department of Architecture at the Military Institute of Science and Technology, Bangladesh. This study uses participant observation involving both the educators as well as learners and a questionnaire survey involving only the students. The results indicate that the learners’ and educators’ perspectives may not always be aligned. This can be useful to improve the studio-based learning program.

Keywords

• Assessment
• Critique
• Jury
• Design Studio
• Architecture education

References

1. Alagbe, O., Aderonmu, P., Alagbe, T., Sonola, O., Olagunju, O., & Erebor, M. (2017). Students’ Perception of Design Studio Jury in Schools of Architecture in Nigeria. 4542–4546. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2017.1072
2. Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Design Studio. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
3. Ardington, A., & Drury, H. (2017). Design Studio Discourse in Architecture in Australia: The Role of Formative Feedback in Assessment. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 16(2), 157–170.
4. Bailey, R. O. (2005). The Digital Design Coach Enhancing Design Conversations in Architectural Education [PhD Thesis]. Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington.
5. Bamford, G. (2002). From Analysis/Synthesis to Conjecture/Analysis: A Review of Karl Popper’s Influence on Design Methodology in Architecture. Design Studies, 23(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00037-0
6. Belluigi, D. Z. (2016). Constructions of Roles in Studio Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 35(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12042
7. Blair, B. (2006). Perception Interpretation Impact; An Examination of the Learning Value of Formative Feedback to Students Through the Design Studio Critique [PhD Thesis, Institute of Education, University of London]. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10019831/
8. 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

9. Blythman, M., Orr, S., & Blair, B. (2007). Critiquing the Crit. Brighton: Art, Design and Media Subject. https://www.academia.edu/download/3584999/Crit-Staff-development-materials-1.pdf
10. Burroughs, S., Brocato, K., & Franz, D. (2009). Problem Based and Studio Based Learning: Approaches to Promoting Reform Thinking Among Teacher Candidates. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, 19(3), 1–15. https://www.academia.edu/download/78880336/Burroughs__20Susie_20Problem_20Based_20and_20Studio_20Based_20Learning-NFTEJ-19-3-09.pdf
11. Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage.
12. Dannels, D., Gaffney, A., & Martin, K. (2008). Beyond Content, Deeper than Delivery: What Critique Feedback Reveals about Communication Expectations in Design Education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2008.020212
13. de la Harpe, B., Peterson, J. F., Frankham, N., Zehner, R., Neale, D., Musgrave, E., & McDermott, R. (2009). Assessment Focus in Studio: What is Most Prominent in Architecture, Art and Design? International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(1), 37–51.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2009.01591.x
14. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (1st ed.). Sage.
15. Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative Data Analysis: A User Friendly Guide for Social Scientists. Routledge. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=m_eJAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT10&dq=Qualitative+data+analysis:+A+user+friendly+guide+for+social+scientist&ots=vS9wJ8meN2&sig=tHjvUG4tKsAu7EUIE2LiIkTzm-4
16. El-Latif, M. A., Al-Hagla, K. S., & Hasan, A. (2020). Overview on the Criticism Process in Architecture Pedagogy. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 59(2), 753–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.01.019
17. Ford, J. M. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage.
18. Goldschmidt, G. (2002). ‘One-On-One’: A Pedagogic Base for Design Instruction in the Studio. Common Ground - DRS International Conference, London. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2002/researchpapers/30/
19. Graham, E. (2003). Studio Design Critique: Student and Faculty Expectations and Reality [Master of Landscape Architecture, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College]. https://doi.org/10.31390/gradschool_theses.556
20. Gray, C. M., & Smith, K. M. (2016). Critical Views of Studio. in Studio Teaching in Higher Education (pp. 272–282). Routledge. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sshTDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA260&dq=students+scared+intimidated+jury+crit&ots=ZluhnL20Sn&sig=Lmas7cl1hifgh7msQqzEKu_gS3s
21. Hassanpour, B., Utaberta, N., Abdullah, N., Spalie, & Tahir, M. (2011). Authentic Assessments or Standardized Assessment New Attitude to Architecture Assessment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3590–3595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.340
22. Hassanpour, B., Utaberta, N., Zaharim, A., & Abdullah, N. G. (2011). Students- Perception of the Evaluation System in Architecture Studios. 5(5), 7.
23. Ledewitz, S. (1985). Models of Design in Studio Teaching. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(2), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1985.10758354
24. Mertler, C. A. (2001). Designing Scoring Rubrics for Your Classroom. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 7, Article 25. https://doi.org/10.7275/gcy8-0w24
25. Moody, L. (2011). A Studio-Based Approach to Teaching Ergonomics and Human Factors. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 55(1), 545–549.
26. Norman, G. (2010). Likert Scales, Levels of Measurement and the “Laws” of Statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
27. Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D., & Yi-Luen Do, E. (2013). 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
28. Olweny, M. R. (2020). Students’ Views of the Architectural Design Review: The Design Crit in East Africa. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 19(4), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022219833595
29. Orr, S., & Bloxham, S. (2013). Making Judgements About Students Making Work: Lecturers’ Assessment Practices in Art and Design. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2–3), 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022212467605
30. Parnell, R., Sara, R., Doidge, C., & Parsons, M. L. (2007). The Crit: An Architecture Student’s Handbook. Routledge. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SeYa5t4uWIcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=students+scared+intimidated+jury+crit&ots=UL_VNzN2Ok&sig=_s4uGarIyiQn2gGVRl8QyMQz3QQ
31. Sadler, D. R. (2002). Ah!… so that’s ‘quality’. In Assessment: Case Studies, Experience and Practice (pp. 130–136). Routledge.
32. Sadler, D. R. (2005). Interpretations of Criteria‐Based Assessment and Grading in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000264262
33. Salama, A. M., & El-Attar, M. S. T. (2010). Student Perceptions of the Architectural Design Jury. 4, 27.
34. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.
35. Smith, C. (2011). Understanding Students’ Views of the Crit Assessment. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 6(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2011.06010044
36. Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant Observation. Waveland Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=q7DlCwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=participant+observation&ots=H0blN_OT-5&sig=iy3ZTc4HBQ_H-N_9nUoZp9eRwTo
37. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage publications. https://genderopen-develop.ub.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/25595/12/whatsnew7.pdf?sequence=1
38. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded Theory in Practice. Sage.
39. Sullivan, G. M., & Artino Jr, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and Interpreting Data from Likert-type Scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541–542.
40. Utaberta, N., & Hassanpour, B. (2012). Reconstructing a Framework for Criteria-Based Assessment and Grading in Architecture Design Studio. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 142–149.
41. Utaberta, N., Hassanpour, B., & Bahar, Mohd. A. (2012). An overview of Architecture Education in Malaysia: A Critical Analysis of Assessment and Critique Session in 2nd Year of Architecture Design Studio at Architecture Department, The National University of Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.371
42. Utaberta, N., Hassanpour, B., Bahar, Mohd. A., & Che Ani, A. I. (2013). A Comprehensive Learning of Architecture Education: Understanding Critique Session as Learning Process and Criteria-based Assessment in the Architecture Design Studio. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.709
43. Utaberta, N., Hassanpour, B., & Usman, I. (2010). Redefining Critique Methods as an Assessment Tools in Architecture Design Studio. WSEAS Transaction on Advanced Education, 359. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nangkula-Utaberta/publication/268015873_Redefining_Critique_Methods_as_an_Assessment_Tools_In_Architecture_Design_Studio/links/5492f8c00cf2213b86cbb5b1/Redefining-Critique-Methods-as-an-Assessment-Tools-In-Architecture-Design-Studio.pdf