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.

What I read

In this paper, the author describes a study on the process of critique. She primarily shows the data through quotes. There is little interpretation or analysis.

The author begins by indicating the importance of a design critique in design education, as "the main formal point for formative assessment." She indicates that formative assessment "cannot be prescriptive. There is no one right answer, known final destination or conclusion to a given problem or project." Critique, then, is subjective, and design students have difficulty in managing this subjective nature of assessment. The author observed four crits, and interviewed five teachers and sixteen students, to learn their feelings about design crit.

She begins by describing the physical context of the spaces she observed. These crits had a large group of students, which made it impossible for many to actually see the critique and work itself; these students were not engaged in the crit.

She identifies that prior research indicates a strong power dynamic at play in critique, and this was reinforced by interviews with students. The power dynamic was only rarely viewed as valuable, if the critique was positive. Students described that they wanted "straightforward, honest, constructive feedback given in a clear objective way." Students also found critique to be "scary." Some of this was related to being in a spotlight, and some was related to being in a vulnerable position of receiving feedback in a very direct manner. The author notes that, from a student perception, "it is not always the quality of the reflection and critical analysis of the learning that is important, but the quality of the 'performance of the crit.'"

The author observed that students are not fully present during the critique, as they seem to be "literally frozen with fear." They fail to hear criticism of their peers, as they are mentally preparing for their own turn, and they also fail to hear criticism of their own work, as they are worried about the performance. She cites Sara and Parnell as describing a critique as a "traumatic experience." It's unclear, then, if students perceive any value in the experience at all.

Last, the author observed that, while some faculty asked the other students if they wanted to participate, this was typically done after the instructor had provided their own feedback, and so very few students participated.

The author concludes that critique has limited value. Students have an opportunity to see each other's work and ideas, and to receive limited feedback from an instructor. However, the large number of students in the room makes a majority of the class time of little use, and adds pressure of performance. These crits become "confrontational" and as a result, students take away little educational value. Instead, seminar formats are viewed by both students and faculty as a more useful way for students to learn and hear discussion about their work.

What I learned and what I think

The more I read about critique experience, the more I'm questioning if the activity has any positive value at all. I'm not ready to abandon the idea of critique, because as a learning mechanism, it's just one of many choices for faculty to select from. But so much depends on the details, and I'm gathering that those details aren't being attended to at all. Faculty need to teach students how critique works. Learning through experience is just one way to gain knowledge, and it feels like there are so many important qualities of critique context that experiential-first is not a great idea here. So, what about simulation? Critique of mock critique? Practicing in small-groups? Observing a critique that is actually done well? Discussing the value of the critique and analyzing it before, during, and after it happens?

I ran the large-form critiques in my studio classes, in just the way described, and in just the way I experienced them myself. 20 kids, moving around the room. I purposefully spoke last, and called on students to participate, so I guess that helped a little. I was pretty rough when speaking last, though. At least I was aware of what I was doing. Maybe. One of the faculty in the study identifies that the crit has little value, but is still doing it…

If there's any purpose of a "gather around" type of learning experience, it has to be to learn about presenting to a large group. Okay, it's a performance—then let's use it as a way for students to learn to perform in a creative context, which is 100% part of the job. But that's a specific set of skills that has nothing to do with improving creative work itself.

The author concludes that a small-group seminar style discussion around the work is a much more effective way of hearing different comments about what was made. My interaction design classes at SCAD were held that way, mostly because they had so few students in them, and of course they were better. Same at AC4D, with typically 8-12 students, and a focus on 3-4 at a time. But we're back to the grounding problem of the operations of the school itself. If you can't figure out how to make money without 20 students in a class, then there's a real constraint around space and meeting size.

At its core, and in the most generous light, a critique is intended as a way for students to learn how to improve the things they made. So, starting there, they need to engage with someone who is informed, and that's not other students. A visual approach is much better than an auditory approach, given the nature of design as being about things, not just ideas, so the professor needs to show their response, not just say it. Design is about details, so they need to attend to specifics and not make sweeping generalizations. The student needs to know how to change, not just what to change, so the conversation and illustration needs to be reflective of method and approach, not just output (which means the professor actually has to know how the student worked over the last few days or weeks.) They will need a way to remember what happened, so the session probably needs to be recorded, or they need to learn how to take notes (and therefore, given time to write things down or draw them.) Other students may learn from observing the whole thing, and asking questions, but that only works if they are engaged too, so the group has to be small (3 people max feels right.) Content should include criticism, but the only way anyone is hearing all about what they did wrong is if they trust the person saying it actually knows what they are talking about, and if they trust them.

So there's my formula for a successful crit.

None of this is impossible at all, and good teachers do this all the time. But it only scales (and only to a point) if everyone is efficient, and that's not really the nature of the whole design process.