LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Critiquing the Crit

Final report

August 2007

Margo Blythman
LCC Director of Teaching and Learning
University of the Arts London
m.blythman@lcc.arts.ac.uk

Susan Orr
Deputy Dean
School of Art
York St John College University
s.orr@yorksj.ac.uk

Bernadette Blair
Director of Academic Development and Quality Assurance
Faculty of Art, Design & Architecture
Kingston University
b.blair@kingston.ac.uk

1
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Contents

Section 1 Project overview and methodology 3

4
Section 2 Key findings

Why the Crit is an issue 4

The Strengths of the Crit 4

Different types of Crit 4

The point of crits 6

The problems of crits 7

Section 3 Project outcomes 10

Interactive staff development workshop on the crit 11

Glossary of terms for students 15

Using the glossary as a staff development activity 18

Studio space and time as a staff development activity 19

Case studies: principles and practice 19

Section 4 Learning and teaching implications 22

Section 5 Dissemination 23

Bibliography 24

Appendix 1 List of contributors 32

2
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Section 1

Project overview

The National Student Survey (www.thestudentsurvey.com/) indicates that it is the

perception of art and design students that they are not getting enough
feedback. Traditionally in art education much of this feedback takes the form
of crits. This NSS finding suggests that there are issues in relation to crits
that need to be addressed. These are likely to be around aims, objectives,
structures and processes in crits and may be about staff and student
perceptions as well as actual practices.

In this project we aimed to examine and critique the crit as a teaching and learning
method through collection and analysis of the experience and views of the
sector. Our aims were to make a contribution to the development of teaching
and learning in art and design through identifying how to build on the
strengths of the crit, how to minimise weaknesses, collect examples of good
practice and produce staff development materials, some of which can also be
used with students.

Additionally, we aimed to involve as many people as possible in gathering this

material. We wanted multiple perspectives and focused on the following
perspectives:

Staff
Students
Staff when they were students

We also aimed to disseminate our findings as widely as possible with priority being
given to face to face interactive events within the sector.

Methodology

Interviews were held with relevant staff and students in a variety of universities. We
put out a number of calls for contributions by email and received a large number of
replies, international as well as UK. Additionally we developed our knowledge of the
relevant literature and commissioned some small projects. The extensive
bibliography is given at the end of the report and appendix 1 lists those colleagues
who contributed.

3
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Section 2

Key findings

1 Why the crit is an issue

Widening participation. There was a feeling that cultural capital played a

considerable role in students ability to perform well in crits.
Student diversity (international; second language etc). This raised the issue
of the extent to which students are prepared for what can be, essentially, a
form of assessment of their oral skills.
Student numbers. For many of our contributors this was a key issue since
sheer pressure of numbers meant that traditional ways of running crits were
no longer viable.
The first year experience. National and institutional policy focus on the first
year student experience had raised questions over the impact of the crit on
students.
Student stress. Several colleagues had raised with us the issue of students
becoming very distressed as a result of experiences in some crits.
NSS. The national student survey (www.thestudentsurvey.com/ ) has shown
a higher than average level of dissatisfaction amongst art and design
students with feedback on their work.

2 . The strengths of the crit

Despite the concerns raised above, there was also a general feeling that the crit has
considerable strengths, many of which other disciplines envy and would like to
emulate. These include:

Group work
Presentation skills to a variety of types of audience
Problem solving
Peer learning.
Student feedback
Formative assessment
Potential for dialogic approaches and understanding the role of different views
Opportunities to involve an outside client
Instant feedback and this feedback can be dialogic. The student can ask
questions about meaning of the feedback
Fun element because it is communal
Human contact. It builds relationships between the staff and the students and
can be a leveller
Enables students to benchmark self against peers

3 . Different types of crit

Desk crits
One to one discussions tutor and student used in architecture.

Formative crits
Crits which usually take place at some interim stage during a project/module before
work is submitted for summative assessment. This is the most common form of crit

4
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

giving students feedback which can allow them to learn to critically evaluate and
move forward with their work.

Summative Crits
Crits where a mark or grade is given for the work. This can be as part of the crit
where the presentation may be taken into account as part of the mark or by staff
looking at the work after feedback has been given to students. Research shows that
students often find these crits frustrating as they are not able to act on any feedback
given in order to improve the project art/design work. Tutors state that the crit is to
teach students how to evaluate and reflect on their work and develop their own
critical judgement, not be told what is right or wrong. The purpose of the crit needs to
be made clear to students.

Industry project crits

Often used by architecture and design courses, where an invited professional from
industry is part of the crit panel. This could be because the student project has been
developed with the industry partner or to give students an experience of external
perspective and feedback.

Group crits
These are the most common form of crits, where a group of students take part in a
crit run by one or more tutors. These can range in time from a series of short half
hour session with a small group of students and tutor to an all day session for a large
cohort of students and tutors. Usually students will present their work in front of their
tutors and peers and receive feedback which can be from tutors and/or student peers
or may on some occasions be from the tutors only. These crits are usually tutor led.

Reviews
A name used by some architecture courses for a group crit.

Seminars
These sessions can be crits usually in a more intimate setting with a smaller group of
students and staff. This, the research has shown, is a preferred form of crit by
students who feel that this encourages participation by shyer and quieter members of
the group and presents an opportunity to see work in more detail. Often these
seminars take place around a table in a non-hierarchical situation.

Peer crits
These are crits run by the student group with the tutor acting as a facilitator. Usually
the student group is divided into smaller groups and the group critiques the work of
those in their own group or the work of those in another group. Students need to be
given agreed criteria to critique against. The tutor as facilitator feeds into the
discussion where there may be questions or queries. Peers then may give feedback
to the group verbally or often through written comments given to the individual
student through anonymised sheets or post-its.
Peer crits can be feedback given by members of the same project/module group or
invited students from a higher level of the course.

Online crits
Students place their work for critique online and students send comments to the
individual student. Again, criteria for feedback comment need to be discussed before
this activity takes place. Students who have experienced this form of crit have said
they like this form of feedback and are more likely to be honest in their feedback
comments when this is not done face to face. This can especially be the case when
dealing with students who are new to crits. Also, they can think about the feedback

5
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

rather than it being always spontaneous. All comments can only be accessed by the
individual student and tutor.

4 . The point of crits

Contributors were clear on the many advantages of crits as a learning method.

Formative assessment that helps students make links between units and
stops them being only strategic about grades, so there is an argument for
increasing the number of these formative crits and decreasing written
assessment points.

Everyone gets a chance to see each others work. This is important now that
students work less in studios, often do not have their own spaces/designated
studios and may not have suitable spaces e.g. studios filled with tables and
chairs, or no computers in studio.

Crits bring up fundamental issues/goes deeper under the crust into the fleshy
part.

Student see that staff have a variety of perspectives and can have apparently
contradictory positions and show disagreement between staff in crits. This is
important since this shows there is not just 'one true way'.

Crits encourage staff to deal with the education of the individual as well as
development of the portfolio.

As events they have more potential for dialogue and are less judgemental.

Crits give informal qualitative feedback, an opportunity to learn from others

and to discuss/debate.

Crits can be seen as the glue that connects learning, teaching and
assessment.

Crits teach students to think on their feet and also teach them to prepare for
talking about their own work and responding to others, learning when to bluff
and when not to bluff.

Crits improve student confidence and get students used to critical judgements
on their work. This helps develop skills in critical thinking.

Crits enable students to learn to benchmark their work, argue for it,
acknowledge difficulties and discern which advice was appropriate to follow
through on.

Crits are an opportunity for students to share and learn from one another, and
to develop their critical awareness.

Crits can be a shared experience and a chance for critical reflectiona

critical analysis of peers work and also a critical analysis from a staff
perspective...a learning experience on all parts...and sharing it with one
another.

6
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Crits can be an experiential process which can be self revelatory for the
student.

5 . The problems of crits

However there was considerable recognition of the challenges presented by this form
of teaching and learning.

Pressures of time and student numbers

There was agreement that crits can be a heavy consumer of staff time.
However many felt that they were more interesting than marking and that in
their own way they were efficient since large numbers could be assessed
quite quickly.

There was general agreement about there being a deterioration in quality of

many crit models through increasing student numbers and declining time
resource. This can mean that rather than two staff perspectives for students
each member of staff takes half the group therefore the multiple perspective is
lost. Also because of time constraints crits may be assessed by single
marker.

However many had adjusted to these new pressures and there are some
good examples later in this report.

Emotional impact of the crit

Many contributors talked about the emotional side of crits.

There was a feeling that there is already a lot of stress in A&D students for
variety of reasons including dyslexia and crits can add to stress.

Some staff had the feeling that students who feel uncomfortable with the crit
format do not turn up and this has negative impact on their work. Lack of
participation could be a self protective strategy on the part of some students.

However others report that there is no evidence that students mind the public
nature. There is also an unexplored question of gender difference.

Others questioned the extent to which quiet students benefit from crits and
also pointed out that crits are difficult for shy students.

It was suggested that in year one students are nervous about crits at the start,
then at level two this eases off and by level three they get very nervous again.

If the crit is summative rather than formative, then it can have a judgemental
tone which students find difficult. The crit can also become about the student
rather than the work and the two can get confused. This relates to ipsative
nature of much A&D feedback/assessment and, as indicated below, this is the
kind of feedback students regard as legitimate.

7
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Many talked about a tradition in art and design of what they saw as the bad
crit where staff behave like prima donnas and indulge in fairly personalised
criticisms of students work. This was often combined with a lack of concrete
advice/help. I wonder what we learn from a tutor who provides only
undefended opinions?

Some felt that, in the past in this tradition, the vast majority of crits did not
comprise constructive critique that was well-argued. More often it was vague
or self-absorbed: comments such as: 'I like it - don't change it', 'I don't like it -
do it again', 'that's crap', 'I can't visualise it, so you probably shouldn't do it',
'Can you resolve it more - more or less?' 'There's something in there, but it's
not what I thought'. These were perceived as comments that helped no one
understand what was good or bad, or what needed to be learnt in order to
improve. This can leave students feeling helpless.

Some felt this unproductive tradition was in decline while others felt it still
operated on some courses.

This did not preclude a belief in being challenging but one contributor pointed
out that teachers need to understand difference between good and bad
stress.

Language and feedback

Many contributors referred to the danger of using difficult language that

students do not understand. These are often words with a specific meaning
in the context of the discipline. Our glossary and the related staff
development material in section 3 aim to address this issue.

Another criticism was of comments like needs to be better rather than

advice. This was felt to be exacerbated by shortage of time.

The term 'crit' is a problem since it easily gets confused (by both staff and
students) between critique and criticism in the exclusively negative meaning
of the word.

Staff often use norm referencing vocabulary by comparing one piece of work
with another student. There was some feeling amongst students that this is
not fair. They expect ipsative comments based on their own previous
achievement, personal circumstances etc.

Some contributors felt that students are often not encouraged to question
accepted dogma, although this seems to vary with level of course.

Another issue raised was an ideology of teachers not wanting to interfere with
the creative process therefore not saying much at all.

Organisational challenges

Two key organisational challenges faced by crits were management of time and
management of student involvement.

8
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Crits often become atomised to one student at a time, even if the original
intention was to discuss over-arching issues, so there is a danger that it
becomes a series of mini-tutorials

Strong students dominate. The overtalker is as much of a problem as the

undertalker.

Questions to the whole group dont get very good responses.

Some crits are completely teacher dominated. Sometimes the problem of the
strong dominating applies to teachers as well as students.

Poor organisation combined with lack of time can lead to teachers barely
looking at some work, whilst spending large amounts of time over others.

The student perspective

Findings from our student focus groups suggest:

Students can feel that the lecturers dont tell them what they want and if they
do, they often change their minds. Students sometimes feel they get mixed
messages. Staff might say one thing in a tutorial and then say something else
in a crit.

Students dislike crits that feel negative, where there are no compliments,
where students do not give their ideas and are not asked to contribute.
Taking part is what makes it fairgiving and taking feedback.

They like feedback to start with the positive. They dont like lecturers to use
shock tactics. They shouldnt diss you to your face. Some crits feel like an
emotional attack.

Some students feel that when asked to write the crit self evaluation during the
crit, they switched off.

Students often cant remember a lot of their feedback. But they remember the
feeling it gave them. They are saying blah blah blah and youre hearing that
is shit, youre shit

Students do not like it when all the time and effort that goes into the work is
not recognized.

Silence by teachers is taken as negative feedback.

The students like passing around of sketch-books/research-books to get

everyone involved.

Students would like to have more peer feedback. Students feel this allowed
them to gain even more ideas as to how their work is viewed by others and
thus other interpretations. However, there was recognition that getting
different views of one's work can be hard to cope with.

9
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Students felt that student involvement could be an issue. the main problem
[with the crit] is the part of students involved. If they are unwilling or unable to
take part fully then the process is very undermined

Feedback helps students to get through the stuck moment.

Some students felt that crits helped them overcome shyness.

Section 3

Project outcomes

What we set out to do in this section is offer some development materials which can
help both staff and students get the best out of crits and so build on the strengths and
minimise the weaknesses. These materials can be used in a variety of ways.

10
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

The Critique in Art and Design: Purposes and Practices

Linda Wheeler

This interactive workshop was designed to encourage participants, who were

colleagues from art and design institutions across the UK, to review and evaluate
their current practices in relation to the critique. By sharing these, thinking about the
student perspective and reconsidering the intended outcomes of the crit, it was
anticipated that more effective and alternative strategies could be developed.

Each individual was allocated a stereotypical role (see attached), either as a tutor or
as a student, and invited to participate in a crit of artefacts they had been asked to
provide. Some brave colleagues brought examples of their own work, whilst others
had pieces of student work or random objects (such as a lever corkscrew). Through
taking on the role they had been given, participants were able to experience afresh
the conflicting emotions, resentments and vulnerability that, according to student
feedback, all too often dominate what happens in a crit.

Following the role-play exercise, discussion was structured around these questions:

Whats the point of crits?

How do we know if were getting it right?

What sort of evidence do we have?

What actually happens in crits?

How can we make sure that our crits achieve their intended outcomes?

Colleagues may also find it useful to analyse the cameo tutors and students. Does
anyone recognise themselves in the descriptions? Have they met any of these
students? How might Tutor 1, for instance, deal with Student 7? All the roles are non-
specific in relation to gender even Student 6. How might allocating gender or
sexual orientation to some of the characters alter the dynamic of the group
interaction? Reflecting on a range of potential scenarios can help to reveal
assumptions, values and attitudes and allow these to be examined critically in
relation to the approaches we take to formative assessment and feedback.

11
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

The tutors:

Tutor 1
You have been working at the Art & Design School for eighteen years and you know
whats what. As a practising artist yourself, with something of a reputation, you know
how tough it is out there in the real world and you reckon youre doing your students
a favour by giving them a hard time during crits. The way you see it, if they cant
take a bit of harsh criticism now, theyll never survive out there. And, of course, you
believe that its your job to pronounce judgement on their work. Theyre here to learn
arent they?

Tutor 2
Youve been working at the Art & Design School for over ten years and, frankly,
youve seen it all before. How can you find something new to say about the same old
predictable responses to the brief? And youre feeling particularly disenchanted this
year. You expected to be promoted into the postgraduate studies department but they
gave the job to someone whod only been here for just over a year! Youre hoping to
get the crit over and done with by early afternoon so that you can catch up with all
that paper work.

Tutor 3
You have been working at the Art & Design School for eighteen months and you are
eager to do a good job. You can remember some pretty humiliating crits from your
own time at art school and youre determined not to do the same thing to your
students. One of the frustrations you recall from your student days was not being
given a chance to explain what your intentions had been, so you always start crits by
inviting the students to present their work and give a rationale. After this, of course,
its important that you deliver your critical judgement on what theyve done. This is
whats expected of you, isnt it?

Tutor 4
You have only recently been appointed at the Art & Design School and youre really
looking forward to working with your students. This is your first crit and you want to
make it a positive learning experience for all concerned. You can remember being
overwhelmed by the studio crits when you were a student and you want to create a
friendlier atmosphere. Youve decided to put them in small groups of four or five and
ask them to take turns presenting their work whilst others in the group offer
constructive comments. You will probably make a contribution, but only after
everyone in the group has had a chance to speak.

12
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

The Students:

Student 1
You are a first year undergraduate student and this is also your first experience of
living away from home. You are finding London an exciting place to be but youre
feeling a bit overwhelmed and all the other students look as if they know what theyre
doing. You have a part-time job at the burger bar to help pay the rent and were there
until midnight last night. You still had work to do on your project and managed to
complete it by about three in the morning. Youre not that pleased with it but youre
hoping the tutor will see how hard youve tried.

Student 2
You are a first year undergraduate student at the Art & Design School and know your
way around a bit since you did your foundation here as well. Your fellow students
have elected you as class representative and you intend to take your responsibilities
seriously. This is the first crit of the year and youre looking forward to it because
youre really pleased with the work youve produced.

Student 3
You are a first year undergraduate student at the Art & Design School and have only
just arrived in London from Japan. This is the first crit of the year and youre really not
sure what to expect. Everyone else seems to have produced very exciting work and
now your own project doesnt look as good as you thought it did. Although your
spoken English is good, youre planning to keep quiet and listen to what the others
have to say.

Student 4
You are a first year undergraduate student at the Art & Design School and youre
delighted to be here. You really enjoyed your Foundation, which you did close to
home in the north of England, and now youre looking forward to getting to know
London. This is the first crit of the year and youre really not sure what to expect.
Everyone seems to have produced very exciting work and your own project looks
pretty good too.

Student 5
You are a first year undergraduate student at the Art & Design School and youre not
really sure if youve made the right choice. Your mum and dad wanted you to do a
business management course because they think this would give you better job
prospects and youre beginning to wonder if they were right. You didnt get what the
project was meant to be about and youre not looking forward to the crit. Everyone
else seemed to know what they had to do and the work theyve brought in looks
much better than yours.

Student 6
You are a first year undergraduate student at the Art & Design School and youre still
finding your feet. As a mature student, you have to juggle your time carefully. Besides
keeping up with your course work you have two small children to look after. Its been
a struggle to complete this project and you feel you could have done better. Youre
hoping youll get some useful feedback in the crit so that you can see how to improve
next time. Youve already learned a lot from looking at what everyone else has done.

Student 7

13
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

You are a first year undergraduate at the Art & Design School for the second time
around. Due to mental health issues, you had to drop out two years ago, having only
managed to complete the first couple of months. Youre feeling really proud of
yourself. Starting over again has taken a lot of courage, but now youre wondering if
you can face the first crit of the year. Although youve worked hard on your piece and
are pleased with the result, letting others see what youve done makes you feel
exposed and vulnerable. What will the tutor say? Will you be expected to speak
about your piece? What about all the other students who seem so confident?

Student 8
You are a first year undergraduate student at the Art & Design School and youre
pretty pleased with yourself. None of the other students on your foundation course in
the West of England managed to get a place in London. You know that your work
looks great because your flatmate was really complimentary about it last night. Some
of the other students have brought in cool pieces too, but youre confident that yours
is one of the best and youre looking forward to hearing the tutor say so.

Student 9
You are a first year undergraduate at the Art & Design School and are very excited to
be studying in London but youre not sure what to make of your peers. Everyone
seems to be so boisterous and confident. Your International Baccalaureate education
in South East Asia gave you a good academic grounding but the work youve
prepared for this first crit looks disappointing compared to the rest and, socially, you
feel inept. Youre also very worried because youve heard that students have to talk
about their work at crits and you are struggling with spoken English. Youve never
been away from your home country before. Its all a bit bewildering.

Student 10
You are a first year undergraduate at the Art & Design School and are very proud to
be studying in London, but now that youve seen what your peers have brought in for
the crit, youre unimpressed. In your opinion, your own work is far superior. Back
home, in Pakistan, everyone knew you were the best and you enjoyed great
popularity, especially with the opposite sex. You are looking forward to explaining
your ideas.

14
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

2 . Glossary of terms for students

It is important to realise that words do not have fixed meanings. This is a starting
point. You might want to add words and play around with these meanings so that
they fit your own subject area, course, perspective. The following meanings come
largely from Graphic Design. We are not attempting to come up with the definitive
meaning. Rather it is a way in which we might give students, especially those not
very confident in English, an insight into the meaning of the term.

Aesthetic

Intrinsic to the work. Using a visual language that constructs the meaning you want.
You also need to recognise that the audience will bring their own reading to the
elements you use.

Analysis

This is methodically and in a detailed way looking at a topic or a piece of work. It

usually means breaking the subject or piece of work down into its various parts

Balance (visual)

This is when the various parts or elements work together in such a way that they
really represent/ get across your intention.

Concept

Something formed in the mind. A concept is bigger than an idea and is transferable.
A concept is often developed in response to a set or self-initiated brief.

Conceptualise

Using or developing concepts

Context

This can be the physical, social or theoretical world that the artefact/design relates to
and exists within. There can be a broad or narrow context. This depends on how
local/national or global the contextualisation is.

Development

Taking the work to a more advanced stage by expanding or enlarging or refining.

Figure and ground

Ground is the space on which the figure is located. The figure is the object of the
space. The figure is the focus of attention and if the ground is too dominant it takes
the focus off the figure/object.

Format

This usually refers to the size of a page, book or publication but it can also include
the style, shape and overall appearance as well.

15
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Functionality

This means whether or not it works for the purpose the product is designed for. Does
it do the job it was intended to do? Often described in relation to the aesthetic form
and function. Both have to work together.

A good breathing space

You need to stand back from the work and reflect before going on.

Harmony

When all components work together, all elements work well together and form and
function work together.

Hierarchy

The structure of the space and the order of information that aids the message. This
represents the relative level of importance attributed to each element of the design.
It signposts what should be dominant in the message.

Inspired

Bringing together different things in an unexpected and unusual way.

Integrity

All elements are appropriate to the visual principles and design values that you are
trying to convey.

Interface

Relationship between the different elements. This is where these elements meet.

Interventions

This is where the artist or designer becomes involved as part of the art or design
work or the audience might be part of the work. It is not done in gallery spaces,
rather it is part of the world and changes the audiences perception of ordinary
locations.

Intuitive

This is instinctive rather than a conscious intellectual process. This operates more
on an emotional level than a rational thought level.

Iterative

Internal dialogue that develops the idea through consecutive stages (one stage after
another) through being methodical.

Juxtaposition

Side by side. The relationship of adjacent elements to each other.

16
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Narrative

A narrative is a written, spoken or visual account of connected events

Navigation

Plotting and following a course from one place to another

Pace and rhythm

The flow you have constructed. The way you want the audience to interact with the
work.

Parameters

Limits. Something that restricts what is possible. Something that determines a

boundary.

Personality

This means that the work has a particular characteristic that gives it a particular
sense of brand and place and time. It refers to what it feels like the kind of
emotional response that it creates.

Play around/experiment

Try out different things

Pushing boundaries

To try to do something new either new for you or new to the subject.

Resolved

This is part of a process to handle design problems. This means that a particular
element is sorted enough to be able to move on. This does not mean that it has to
meet a pre-set conclusion.

Rhythm

Pace. The way the eye is led through so that they see movement in a particular
pattern. This can be through colour, shape etc. Rhythm is emphasised by putting in
a dissonant element to give a sense of contrast and makes the eye pause and so
increases effect and understanding.

Synergy

Combined effect of elements or parts so that their combined effect is greater than the
individual parts such as balance, energy, tension, meaning.

Tension

17
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

The way in which conflicting elements interact. Tension can be a good or bad thing.

This works

You have managed to embody the key elements such as balance, energy, tension,
meaning, in this particular piece of work.

Unresolved

This word indicates a lack of important considerations such as

tension/synergy/balance etc. It indicates that there is still scope for taking the work to
a more advanced stage by expanding or enlarging or refining.

Visual rhetoric

This is the use of words and images to persuade or influence users of information

Visual thinking

Beginning your thinking with something visual. Developing your thinking through
gathering visual references.

Zeitgeist

This means of the moment, things that particularly encapsulate that particular time
and place.

3 . Using the glossary as a staff development activity

The aim of the glossary to not to come up with definitive and complex explanations.
It is to give common sense meanings to students, including those who may not have
English as their first language.

a . Take three words from the student glossary and in pairs debate if you agree or
want to change the explanation. The meaning might be different in the context of
your discipline.

b . Think of three new words that you use in crits and come up with explanations in
pairs or small groups.

18
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

4 . Staff development activity on making the best of the studio physical space
and time

You have 120 first year students, some of whom have come from Foundation and
have experience of crits and others who dont. You have them for a day for Crit/s and
three members of staff, two of whom are experienced and one of whom is new. This
is an interim crit on the students first project.

a . What are the issues and strengths that come from having a mixed group of
students in terms of experience of crits?

b . Think, in pairs, of all the ways the Crit could be run.

c . What would be the advantages and disadvantages of each method for

students
staff

5. Case Studies: principles and good practice

Principles

The learning benefits of a good crit should allow students to:

reflect on their own learning in relation to their peers

learn from their peers

clarify ideas

practise presentation skills

develop their critical awareness through evaluation and reflection

receive feedback from their tutors and peers

test ideas in a supportive environment without the pressures of the 'real world'

In the list below we offer tried and tested approaches to crit pedagogy. These ideas
have been shared with us by the many respondents and interviewees that have been
involved in this project.

Recording learning

1. Ensure that students take away from the crit a written record of the dialogue
about their work. This appears to work most effectively when students are
invited to scribe for each other.

2. Students evaluatory responses can be developed via a range of carefully

organised introductory exercises. For example, set up crit pairings so
students discuss and crit work in pairs before the larger group crit.
Alternatively, give all the students post-it notes; ask them to write a comment
on each piece of student work, or ask them to indicate whose work is most

19
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

successful against a range of criteria (for example whose work has the most
imaginative/communicative documentation). Students should be given a copy
of all the feedback at the end of the crit.

3. Use a range of written prompts to stimulate students' written response to each

others work. In the early stages of the programme of study these prompts
will ask very simple questions about the student work. Later on in the course
the questions should reflect a growing level of sophistication and the use of
an extended vocabulary.

4. Ask students to evaluate their own work in writing before and after the crit.
They can then identify how the feedback has informed their view.

Managing the Crit space

5. Students capacity for engagement can be enhanced by effective crit

management. For example, engagement can be enhanced by something as
simple as making sure that all students can see the artwork clearly. Equally,
engagement can be enhanced by setting up the crit space so that students
face each other (and not the studio wall), the resultant increased eye contact
can promote dialogue and debate.

6. Have the crit audience seated in a half circle around the presenting student
and their work. This is a less confrontational scenario for students. Also if
each student presents in the same space then there is less disruption with the
group moving around the room. If work is wall mounted then having smaller
groups moving around (see peer crits) and students being given time before
the crit to view all the work would engage the whole group.

Language

7. Discourse is central to the crit. Students find it helpful when lecturers

explicitly model the types of feedback and dialogue that they hope to
inculcate in the students.

8. Ensure that the language and terminology used is understood by the student
group.

Maintaining student engagement

9. It is useful to make sure that the work is responded to thematically. Thus a

student may get his or her own feedback but their work may be referred to in
relation to other student work over the course of the crit. This means that the
crit is not simply experienced as a waiting game until it is each students turn,
after which they can switch off. Thus the lecturer draws out comparisons
and contrast between students work as a means to promote sustained
student engagement.

10. If all students work is to be critiqued individually, manage the timing of crit so
that the work presented and discussed near the end is not rushed or left out.

11. To vary crit routine it can be useful to ask students to present work which is
not their own. The experience of pitching someone elses work can open up

20
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

a new experience of evaluative feedback. This approach can be useful to

help to disentangle the person from the work.

12. Ask students to write an anonymous reflection on their work and how it has
progressed. Put these in a hat. A student is asked to pull out a piece of
paper from the hat and the group have to decide whose work is being referred
to. This student then takes the next piece of paper out of the hat. This
encourages students to reflect and evaluate on how they articulate their work
and ensures all students are continually engaged in the process.

13. Students can also be divided into small groups of 4-5 and look at the work of
each individual in their group. They discuss the work in relation to the criteria
given by the tutor and then feedback to the main group as a whole.

14. Ask a student to chair the crit. In this case they take it in turns to become fully
responsible for timing and pace.

15. Link crit attendance to the learning requirements to ensure good attendance.

16. Seek out opportunities for interdisciplinary crits which offer students
opportunities to present their work to audiences outside of their discipline.

17. Make sure the centrality of the crit is signaled at induction. Explain the
purpose of the crit to new students especially those who may not have
experienced anything similar due to cultural differences.

18. Allow for silence. This can offer important time for reflection.

21
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Section 4

Learning and teaching implications

Work in such a way that the student leaves studio with a written record of
what has been said. This enables them to reflect on the comments in a less
emotionally charged way.

Have a variety of crit activities involving small groups/pairs as well as large

groups. Different kinds of crits have different advantages and disadvantages
and a variety of models meets the needs of most students.

Maximise opportunities for students to see everyone elses work. Students

feel they learn from this and it helps build up a community of practice. Where
possible make these opportunities cross-year.

Interrogate work around specific points/themes. This brings structure to the

occasion and is likely to help students participate more actively.

Explicitly model to students appropriate types of feedback and dialogue.

Students are mainly not explicitly taught how to present their work verbally at
a crit.

Explicitly check who is doing the talking. Is it teachers (all or one dominant
one?), students (if so is it the student whose work is being discussed,
students in the audience?) Who is not talking? (particular groups of
students? international/less confident etc?)

Keep accurate records of attendance and work discussed to ensure fair

access to comments. Attendance is an issue. For a variety of reasons many
students might miss crits. Do we know what these reasons are?

Recognise the emotional side of being critiqued and ensure crits deal with the
positive as well as negative. Silence is taken as negative feedback.
Students dont remember the words but they remember the feeling the words
gave them. More negative comments from teachers lead to less student
input.

Plan crits in advance in relation to:

o Time
o Numbers
o Space
o Preparatory work by students

Recognise the importance of the comfort and organisation of the physical

space:

o line of sight
o comfort if standing, for how long?
o Close enough to see work properly?

22
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

o What atmosphere is created by the physical lay out? Relaxed?

Intimidating? Stressful?

Section 5

Dissemination

Part of our strategy for this project was to do as much face to face dissemination as
possible since we both learned from these events through the active contribution of
participants and we felt that a dialogic approach was most effective in raising the
issue with the sector.

The following indicate events that have either happened or for which we have firm
bookings. We intend to go on disseminating on every possible occasion and would
welcome invitations from groups and institutions.

Events at which project findings have been presented

Critiquing the Critique: One day workshop presentation at Centre

for Teaching and Learning in Art & Design (CLTAD) 27th November 2006

CEDLT (Centre for Educational Development in Learning and Teaching - FDLT4)

University of Brighton research presentation Critiquing the Crit - 27th January 2007
http://cetld.brighton.ac.uk/events/berni-blair-on-critiquing-the-crit

Arts Institute Bournemouth research seminar presentation - 28th

January 2007. Critiquing the Critique

Critiquing the Crit NALN conference London 21 and 22 February 2007

Research presentation and workshop - Plymouth College of Art

and Design. 21st February 2007. Critiquing the Critique.
http://artifax.pcad.ac.uk/FINAL%20February%20leaflet%20text%20180107.doc

Critiquing the Critique. Design and Pedagogy Conference, Leeds College of Art &
Design. 16 March 2007

Research presentation at University of the Arts Assessment Day -

20 March 2007: Perception, Interpretation, Impact - formative assessment and
learning in the studio crit.'

Critiquing the Crit workshop ELIA conference Brighton 12 July 2007

http://www.elia-artschools.org/_downloads/activities/workshops_ta/A8.pdf

Locating learning through the perception of self and its' impact on verbal formative
assessment in student learning. Paper presented at the ISSOLT Conference,
University of New South Wales, Sydney Australia. July 2-5 2007. "Locating Learning:
Integrative Dimensions in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning"

Paper accepted for DEFSA (Design Education Forum of

South Africa) International Conference Design Education in a Changing
World. 3-5 October 2007, Cape Town, South Africa. Perception of Self
and its impact on verbal formative feedback in design student learning.

23
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Publications

Blair, B. (2007). An Examination of the Learning Value of Formative Feedback to

Students in Undergraduate Design Courses Through the Studio Critique. In S.
Frankland (Ed.), Enhancing Teaching and Learning Through Assessment: Emerging
Ideas, Assessment Series, Volume 4. Hong Kong: Assessment Resource Centre,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. [in press]

Blair, B. (2007) Perception/ Interpretation/ Impact, Networks. No. 1.p 10-13. Art,
Design & Media Subject Centre, The Higher Education Academy.

Blair, B. (2006). "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)

Blair, B. (2006). Does the studio crit still have a role to play in 21st Century design
education and student learning.' In A. Davies (Ed.) Enhancing Curricula: contributing
to the future - meeting the challenges of the 21st century in the disciplines of art,
design and communication. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference. Lisbon,
April 2006: Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design. (CLTAD).

We also plan an article summing up our findings for the autumn ADM- HEA
Networks newsletter.

Bibliography

Ahrentzen, S. (1992). Sex, plugs, and rock & roll: Students talk about life in the
studio. Archimage. Milwaukee, WI: University of WisconsinMilwaukee School of
Architecture and Urban Planning.

Ahrentzen, S., & Anthony, K. (1993). Sex, stars, and studios: A look at gendered
educational practices in architecture. Journal of Architectural Education, 47(1), 11-29.

Anthony, K. H. (1989). "Judging Juries: A Comparative Study of Student and Faculty

Reactions to Design Juries in Architectural Education." in ACSA Annual Meeting:
Debate and Dialogue Architectural Design And Pedagogy , Chicago: ACSA.

Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Anthony, K. (1987). Private reactions to public criticism: Students, faculty and

Practicing architects state their views on design juries in architectural education.
Journal of Architectural Education, 40(3), 2-11.

Askew, S. & Lodge, C. (2000). 'Gifts, ping-pong and loops - linking feedback and
learning', in S. Askew (ed.) Feedback for Learning. London: Routledge Falmer.

Atkinson, T &. Claxton, G. (ed.) (2000). The Intuitive Practitioner. Buckingham: Open
University Press

Austerlits, N. & Aravot, I. (2002). 'Emotions in the Design Studio'. In A. Davies (Ed.)
Enhancing Curricula: exploring effective curriculum practices in design and

24
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

communication in Higher Education proceedings of 1st International conference.

London: Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art & Design. (CLTAD)

Austerlitz, N. (2006) The emotional structure of the student-Instructor relationship in

the Design Studio. In A. Davies (Ed.) Enhancing Curricula: contributing to the future -
meeting the challenges of the 21st century in the disciplines of art, design and
communication. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference. Lisbon: Centre for
Learning and Teaching in Art and Design. (CLTAD).

Barrett, T. (2006). Criticizing Photographs - An Introduction to Understanding Images.

New York: McGraw Hill

Barrett, T. (2000). Studio critiques of student art: As they are, as they could be with
mentoring. Theory Into Practice, 39, 29-35.

Belanoff, P. Dickson, M. (1991). Portfolios: process and product. Portsmouth: NH,

Boynton/Cook.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: what the student does.
Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education, Open University Press.

Blair, B. (2003). Interpretations of Assessment: A study of students' understanding of

the assessment criteria used in art and design undergraduate education, (EdD
Institution Focused Study) Institute of Education. London University.

Blair, B. (2004). 'Interpretations of assessment: a study of students' understanding of

the assessment criteria through the practice of formative feedback'. In A. Davies (Ed.)
Enhancing Curricula: towards the scholarship of teaching in art, design and
communication in higher education. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference.
London: Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design. (CLTAD)

Blair, B. (2006). : 'Perception, Interpretation, Impact - An examination of the learning

value of formative feedback to students through the design studio critique.' Institute of
Education, London University. (EdD thesis)

Blair, B. (2006). 'Does the studio crit still have a role to play in 21st Century design
education and student learning.' In A. Davies (Ed.) Enhancing Curricula: contributing
to the future - meeting the challenges of the 21st century in the disciplines of art,
design and communication. Proceedings of 3rd International Conference. Lisbon,
April 2006: Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design. (CLTAD).

Blair, B. (2006) "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),

Blair, B. (2007). An Examination of the Learning Value of Formative Feedback to

Students in Undergraduate Design Courses through the Studio Critique.
Frankland, Steve (Ed.) (2007). Enhancing Teaching and Learning through
Assessment: Deriving an Appropriate Model. The Assessment Resource Centre, The
Hong Kong Polytechnic University / The Netherlands: Springer

Blair, B. (2007).Perception/Interpretation/Impact. Networks. No. 1. p.10-13. Art,

Design & Media Subject Centre, The Higher Education Academy.

25
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Boyd Davis, S. (2000). 'Educating the multimedia designer' In D. Dudley and S.

Mealing, (Ed.) Becoming designers: education & influence. Exeter: Intellect Books.

Brown, R. (2004). 'The social environment of learning'. In A. Davies (Ed.) Enhancing

Curricula: towards the scholarship of teaching in art, design and communication in
Higher Education. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference. London: Centre for
Learning and Teaching in Art and Design. (CLTAD).

Buster, K., & Crawford, P. (2007). The critique handbook: A sourcebook and survival
guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Cannatella, H. (2001). 'Art Assessment'. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education 26 (4), 319-326.

Cash, C. (2007) Talkback: the student experience of learning through verbal

feedback in the studio. Elia Teachers Academy 2005 11-14 July Brighton. www.elia-
artschools.org/_downloads/activities/trigger_ta/C2_full.pdf

Chadwick, S. and Crotch, J. (2006). Mutual respect: working towards a modern

review model, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 5 (2) p. 145-151

Cobb, J. (2000). 'Teaching and Learning practices commonly used in Art and Design
Education'. In C Rust (Ed.) Improving Student Learning 7. Improving Student
Learning through Disciplines. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning
Development.

Conanan, D.M. Pinkard, N. (2001). Students' perception of Giving and receiving

Design Critiques in an Online Learning Environment. Conference proceedings on
"Computer Supported Collaborative learning - 22-24 March, Maastricht, Netherlands.
http://www.//.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/papers/29.pdf. Last accessed 30 July 2007.

Cowan, J. (2000). Evaluation and feedback in architectural education. In D. Nicol, &

C. Pilling (Eds.), Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism
(pp. 274-283). New York: E & FN Spon.

Crysler, C. G. (1995). "Critical Pedagogy and Architectural Education" Journal of

Architectural Education 48:4, pp. 208-217.

Cuff, D. (2000) "Studio Crit The studio is the heart of the architect's education, but it
may be time for a checkup", Architecture Vol 89; Part 9, pp 76-77

Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture - The Story of Practice. Cambridge: The MIT Press

Dannels, D. P. (2005). Performing Tribal Rituals: A Genre Analysis of "Crits" in Design

Studio. Communication Education. 54 (2), 136-160

Dannels, D. P. & Norris, K. (2006). Critiquing "Critiques": A Genre Analysis of

feedback in Design Critiques. A paper presented in the Instructional Development
Division of the National Communication Association. North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC.

Danvers, J. (2003). 'Towards a Radical Pedagogy: Provisional Notes on Learning and

Teaching in Art and Design'. Journal of Art and Design Education. 22 (1), 47-51

26
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Davies, A. (2002). 'Enhancing the design curriculum through pedagogic research'. In

A. Davies (Ed.) Enhancing Curricula; exploring effective curriculum practices in
design and communication in Higher Education. Proceedings of 1st International
conference. London: Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art & Design. (CLTAD)

Davies. A. (2000). 'Uncovering problematics in design education, teaching and

assessment'. In C. Rust (Ed.) Improving Student Learning 7. Improving Student
learning through Disciplines. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning
Development.

Davies, A. & Reid, A. (2000). 'Uncovering problematics in design education: Learning

and the design entity'. In C. Swann & E. Young (Ed.) Re-inventing Design Education
in the University, Proceedings of International Conference 11-13 December. School
of Design, Curtain University of Technology, W. Australia.

Devas, A. (2004). 'Reflection as confession: discipline and docility in / on the student

body'. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education. 3 (1), 33-46

Dineen, R. & Collins, E. (2005). 'Killing the Goose: Conflicts between Pedagogy and
Politics in the Delivery of a Creative Education'. Journal of Art and Design Education.
24 (1), 43-51

Dodge, C. Sara, R. Parnell, R. Parsons, M (2000). The Crit: An Architecture

Student's Handbook. Oxford: Architectural Press

Drew, L. & Williams, C. (2002). Variations in the experience of teaching creative

practices: the community of practice dimensions. In C Rust (Ed.) Improving Student
Learning: Theory and Practice - 10 years on. Oxford Centre for Staff learning and
Development. Oxford. OCSLD Oxford Brooks University.

Drew, L (2004) 'The experiences of teaching creative practices: conceptions and

approaches to teaching in the community of practice dimension'. In A. Davies (Ed.)
Enhancing Curricula: towards the scholarship of teaching in art, design and
communication in Higher Education. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference.
London: Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design.(CLTAD).

Dutton,T. A (Ed.) (1991) Voices in Architectural Education: cultural politics and

pedagogy. New York: Bergin & Garvey

Eca, T. (2002). 'A conceptual framework for art and design external assessment'.
European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon. Available at
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/00002283.htm. Last accessed. 6th January 2006

Efland, A. (2002). Art and Cognition - Integrating the Visual Arts into the Curriculum.
New York: Teachers College Press

Eisher, E. (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Haven: Yale University
Press

Elkins, J. (2001). Critiques (Ch. 4) in Why Art cannot be Taught. University of Illinois
Press. Urbana & Chicago. P. 111-167

Fleming, D. (1998). 'Design Talk- Constructing the Object in Studio Conversations'.

Design Issues. 14 (2), 41-62

27
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Fredrickson, M. P. (1990). Design Juries. A study in lines of communication. Journal

of Architectural Education. 43 (2), 22-26.

Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books

Horton, I. (2007) The relationship between Creativity and the Group Crit in Art and
Design. Paper presented at the Creativity Conference, 8-10 January. University of
Wales, Cardiff. http://www.creativityconference.org/tabled_papers.php#session2.
Last accessed 24th May 2007.

Issacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: a pioneering approach
to communicating in business and in life. New York: Doubleday.

Joughin, G. & Collom, G. (2003). Oral Assessment. ILT website- Available at:
www.heacademy.ac.uk/embedded_object.asp?
id=21642&filename=Joughin_and_Collom. Last accessed 6th January 2006

Joyce, R. (1997). 'Foreword: Architects Process Inspiration, Perspecta 2', New

Haven: The Yale Architectural Review, MIT

Kent, L. (2005). 'Studio Conversation: Approaches for a Postmodern Context'.

Journal of Art and Design Education. 24 (2), 159-165

Kluger, A. & DeNisi, A. (1996). 'The Effects of Feedback Interventions on

Performance: A Historical Review, a Meta Analysis, and a Preliminary
Feedback Intervention Theory'. Psychological Bulletin. 119 (2), 254-283

Macdonald, S. (1984). 'Editorial: Views of Art and Design Education in Britain'.

Journal of Art and Design Education. 3 (1), 3-4

Maclellan, E. (2001). 'Assessment for Learning: the differing perceptions of tutors and
students'. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 26 (4), 307-318.

Madge, C. & Weinberger, B. (1973) Art Students Observed. Faber & Faber, London

Marton, F and Saljo, R. (1984). 'Approaches to learning'. In F.Marton, D Hounsell and

N. Entwistle (Ed.) The Experience of Learning, Edinburgh: Scottish Academy Press.

McCoy, K. (1993) Countering the Tradition of the Apolitical Designer, in Myerson, J.

(ed) Design Renaissance: Selected Papers from the International Design Congress
Glasgow, Open Eye Publishing.

McDowell, L. (2003). Students and Innovative Assessment. Available at:

www.heacademy.ac.uk/embedded_ object.asp? Last accessed 6th January 2006

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

Morton, J. (2006), The integration of images into architecture presentations: a

semiotic analysis. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5 (1), 21-37

Morton, J., & OBrian, D. (2005). Selling your design: Oral communication
pedagogy in design education. Communication Education, 54, 6-19.

National Student Survey www.thestudentsurvey.com/ Accessed 20 August 2007

28
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Oak, A. (1998). 'Assessment and understanding: An analysis of talk in the design

studio critique'. In S. Wertheim, A. Bailey, M. Corston-Oliver (Ed.) Engendering
Communication - proceedings from the fifth Berkeley Women and Language
Conference, Berkeley California: University of California.

Oak, A. (2000). 'It's a nice idea, but it's not actually real: Assessing the Objects and
Activities of Design'. Journal of Art and Design Education. 19 (1) 86-95

Ochsner, J K. (2000). 'Behind the Mask: a psychoanalytical perspective on interaction

in the design studio'. Journal of Architectural Education. 53 (4), 194-206

ODonovan, B. Price, M. Rust, C. (2004). 'Know what I mean? Enhancing student

understanding of assessment standards and criteria'. Teaching in Higher Education.
9 (3), 325-335

Orsmond, P. Merry, S. Reiling, K. (2002). The student use of tutor formative feedback
in their learning. Learning Communities and Assessment Culture Conference,
University of Northumbria. Available at:
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002233.htm. Last accessed 6th January
2006.

Ostermann, A. C. (1998, March). Drawing on words and words on drawings:

Construction of identity and negotiation of expertise in design juries in the school of
architecture . Paper presented at the American Association for Applied Linguistics
Conference, Seattle, WA.

Owens, K. (2007) Critique Methodology: Replacing Conformity with Creativity. Paper

presented at the Creativity Conference, 8-10 January. University of Wales,Cardiff .
http://www.creativityconference.org/abstracts.php. Last accessed 04/02/07

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), 143-154

Pope, N. K. (2005). 'The impact of stress in self and peer assessment'. Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education. 30 (1), 51-63

Potts, W. (2000). The design studio as a vehicle for change: The Portsmouth
Model. In D. Nicol & C. Pilling (Eds.), Changing architectural education:
Towards a new professionalism (pp. 241-251). New York: E & FN Spon.

Pressman, A. (1993). Architecture 101: A guide to the design studio. New

York: Wiley.

Purdie, N. & Hattie, J. (1996). 'Cultural Differences in the Use of Strategies for Self-
Regulated Learning'. American Educational Research Journal. 33 (4), 845-871

Radnor, H. A. (1994). 'The problems of facilitating qualitative formative assessment in

pupils'. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 64, 145-160.

Race, P. (2003). Using Feedback to help students learn. Available at:

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/embedded_object.asp?id=21641&filename=Race. Last
accessed 6th January 2006

29
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Ross, M. Radnor, H. Mitchell, S. Bierton, C. (1993). Assessing Achievement in the

Arts. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Rust, C. Price, M. O'Donovan, B (2003). 'Improving students' learning by developing

their understanding of assessment criteria and processes'. Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education. 28 (2), 147-163.

Sachs, A. (1999). 'Stuckness in the Design Studio'. Design Studies. 20 (2), 195-209

Sara, R. & Parnell, R. (2004). The Review Process, CEBE Transactions, Briefing
Guide Series 1 (2), 56-69

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schon, D. (1995). The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action.

London: Arena

Schn, D. 1985. The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials.
London: RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust.

Senturer, A. & Cihangir, I. (2000). 'Discourse as Representation of Design Thinking

and Beyond: Considering the Tripod of Architecture Media, Education and Practice'.
Journal of Art and Design Education. 19 (1), 72-85

Sheffield University -School of Architecture. (2004) Review of the Review. Available

at http://www.shef.ac.uk/architecture/main/activities/sr_revr.shtml. Last accessed 23
January 2006

Shreeve, A. Baldwin, J. Faraday, G. (2003). Variations in Student Conception of

Assessment Using Learning Outcomes. Paper presented at Conference on
Improving Student Learning: Theory, Research and Scholarship, September 2003,
Brighton Sussex.

Stobart, G. (2006). 'The Validity of Formative Assessment', In J. Gardner (Ed.)

Assessment and Learning, London: Sage.

Swann, C. (2002). Nellie is Dead. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education.
1 (1), 50-53.

Swift, J. (1999). '1nstitutional Art Education: Curriculum, Teacher and Learner'.

Journal of Art and Design Education. 18 (1), 99-106.

Taylor, M. J. McCormack, C. (2006). Creative critique in visual communication:

effective feedback in design projects through voice centred studio based
communication and online delivery.
www.acuads.com.au/conf2006/papers_refereed/taylor_mccormack.pdf. Last
accessed 30 July 2007.

Taylor, M. J. McCormack, C. (2006) "Effective verbal feedback for project-based

assessment: A case study of the graphic design critique". Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Enhancing Teaching and Learning through Assessment,
Hong Kong, 13-15 June 2005

Taylor, M. J. McCormack, C. (2004). Juggling Cats: Investigating Effective Verbal

Feedback in Graphic Design Studio Crits.

30
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

www.acuads.com.au/conf2004/papers/taylor_mccormack.pdf. Last accessed 29 July

2007.

Till, J. (2004). 'The Lost Judgement.' EAAE Writings in Architectural Education Prize.
Copenhagen. Available at www.openhouse-int.com/competi/JEREMY TILL
PAPER.pdf Last accessed 24th November 2005.

Torrance, H. &. Pryor, J. (2001). 'Developing formative assessment in the classroom:

using action research to explore and modify theory'. British Educational Research
Journal. 27 (5), 615-613.

Trigwell, K. (2002). 'Approaches to teaching design subjects: a qualitative analysis'.

Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education. 1 (2), 69-80.

Vowles, H. (2000). The Crit as a ritualized legitimation procedure in

Architectural education. In D. Nicol, & C. Pilling (Eds.), Changing architectural
education: Towards a new professionalism (pp. 252-258). New York: E & FN
Spon.

Webster, H. (2006) Power, Freedom and Resistance: Excavating the Design Jury.
International Journal of Art and Design Education. 25 (3), 286-296

Webster, H. (2006), A Foucauldian look at the Design Jury, Art, Design &
Communication in Higher Education. 5 (1), 5-19

Webster, H. (2007).The Analytics of Power: Re-presenting the Design Jury. Journal

of Architectural Education. p.21-27

White, R. (2000). The student-led crit as a learning device. In D. Nicol & C. Pilling
(Eds.), Changing architectural education: Towards a new professionalism (pp. 211
219). New York: E & FN Spon.

Wilkin, M. (2000). Reviewing the review: An account of a research

investigation of the crit. In D. Nicol & C. Pilling (Eds.), Changing architectural
education: Towards a new professionalism (pp. 100-107). New York: E & FN
Spon.

Willenbrock, L. (1991). 'An Undergraduate Voice in Architectural Education' In T. A.

Dutton. (Ed.) Voices in Architectural Education: cultural politics and pedagogy. New
York: Bergin and Garvey.

31
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

Appendix 1 Those who contributed:

Staff

Joanna Bailey
Gary Barker
Rosemary Bonsall
Paul Bowman
Alma Boyce
Adam Brown
Cynthia Cousens
Chris Dowlen
Helen Elder
Damien Fennell
Michael Hegarty
Ian Horton
Julie James
Jamie Hobson
Nicolette Lee
Liz Leyland
Christian Lloyd
Wendy Mayfield
Sabina Monza
Denis OBrien
Rob Pepper
Rachel Sara
Nancy Spanbroek
Ian Storey
Janthia Taylor
Mary-Jane Taylor
Melissa Thompson
Roxy Walsh
Linda Wheeler
Elizabeth Wright
Doug Young
NALN conference workshop participants 21 February 2007
ELIA workshop participants 12 July 2007
Student focus groups Leeds Met 12 December 2006

32
LTR 021007 LTR08/01/07

33