Pixel International Conferences

The studio is many things. It is a space, a class, and a method of instruction. Studio-based learning is the preferred pedagogy for art and design education. It is where students integrate knowledge with application, and prepare for their profession upon graduation. Students often are given an ill-defined problem to solve, one that has multiple acceptable solutions. Several iterations of a design solution will be done, to narrow down the final solution. Students are given a limited time to explore the design problem and present their solutions at a final presentation. This is done at the end of the semester in a public juried event known as a critique or “crit”. A crit differs from a single act of criticism because it is a community event meant to help the student improve his work. The instructing faculty invite a group, or jury, of experts to form a collective judgment of the work and provide opportunities for students to learn the knowledge and attitudes of a design discipline. This critique relies heavily on the judgements of these invited reviewers who are assumed to be disciplinary experts. Yet what qualifies them as an expert? Seldom is the jury process and reviewers questioned or challenged. This study investigates how design instructors select their studio reviewers. In a case study at a large design school in the United States, studio instructors in architecture, industrial design, interior design, landscape architecture, and graphic design responded to open-ended questions about how they, and their colleagues, determine studio reviewers. Benefits to using a studio-based learning method will be discussed; results of the case study will be conferred; and suggestions will be provided for how faculty can better select expert reviewers to aid in student assessment.

Keywords: Pedagogy, Art and Design, Studio Education.

References:

[1] Brady, D.A. (1996). The education of an architect: Continuity and change. Journal of Architectural Education, 50(1), 32-49.
[2] Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M.D., & Do, E.Y. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34, 302-325.
[3] Mewburn, I. (2012). Lost in translation: Reconsidering reflective practice and design studio pedagogy. Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 11(4), 363-379.
[4] Ilozor, B.D. (2006). Balancing jury critique in design reviews. CEBE Transactions, 3(2), 52-79.
[5] Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25(5), 443-457.
[6] Lawson, B. & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
[7] Simonton, K. (1985). Quality, quantity, and age: The careers of 10 distinguished psychologists. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 21(4), 241-254.
[8] Ericsson, K.A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich & R.R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683-703). NY: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Kaufman, S.B. & Kaufman, J.C. (2007). Ten years to expertise, many more to greatness: An investigation of modern writers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(2), 114-124.
[10] Runco, M.A., McCarthy, K.A., & Svenson, E. (1994). Judgments of the creativity of artwork from students and professional artists. The Journal of Psychology, 128(1), 23-31.
[11] Ayres, L. & Knafl, K.A. (2008). Typological analysis. In Given, L.M. (Ed.), The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 901-903). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[12] Jones, S.H. (1996). Crits: An examination. Journal of Art & Design Education, 15(2), 133-141.