The Perceived Value of Informal, Peer Critique in the Instructional Design Studio

What I read

In this text, the authors examine informal critique in a non-traditional context—with instructional design students. Advanced students ran unstructured critique sessions with novice students, and through a survey, the authors gathered data about student sentiment. They conclude that students feel they benefit from informal critique from their peers.

The authors begin by stressing the importance of design studio in education, and state that "the purpose of design studio teaching is to enculturate students into the customs, habits, and skills of professional design practice." The studio is positioned as a social space, with socializing viewed as one of the most important benefits of this type of teaching and learning. Critique is one of the most important parts of studio learning, and critique "can be a difficult experience for students, as the feedback can be harsh and unsparing of their emotional well-being." This study investigates that perception, but in the context of instructional design, which is not a typical venue for critique.

Critique is noted by Gray to be the center of design practice, and the authors indicate that critique has more benefits than improving the work product; "these include gaining experience with decision-making, learning how to communicate, and helping students 'find their own voice.'" Sometimes critique is formal, and conducted by the professor, but "peer-critique is also an important pedagogical method in design education." This form of critique takes the form of conversations, and is more valuable when students ask questions rather than offer opinions. There may be limitations or negatives to peer critique. These include potentially creating a competitive atmosphere between students, or excluding some students from a larger community.

The authors describe their study. More established students (two or three semesters ahead of novice students) were assigned to run a review with less established students. These students "received brief instructions on participating in a critique." All of the students then completed a survey about their experiences, focused on sentiment and perception of value. The data was analyzed and coded and triangulated and member checked and other things.

The findings indicated different perceptions between those running the critique and those participating. Newer students felt that "their greatest perceived benefit was the concern reviewers showed for their learning." This took the form of individualized attention and new perspectives on their work. Additionally, beginning students "enjoyed working with reviewers who were in similar situations to themselves." And, students gained introspection into their working habits, primarily focused on time management. They felt that reviewers were empathetic, and that reviewers "'told them their projects were awesome, sounded fun, and could be extremely useful.'"

The advanced students felt they received value, but provided less. They also experienced introspection and felt they were more prepared than they initially believed. But, they felt they were somewhat or unprepared to conduct a critique session, and that "the advanced course instructor could have spent some time modeling critiquing activities."

The authors conclude that the primary benefit of informal peer-to-peer critique was in building student confidence. "The enthusiasm and interest advanced students showed helped build confidence in the beginners, which was at least as important (if not more so) than the actual substance of the feedback that was given." A second benefit was in a perception of skill reinforcement, and a realization that critique is a useful way to work.

What I learned and what I think

I was hoping to read about an experiment that captured real informal critique—critique that was impromptu and initiated by students when it was necessary. This was not that: students were instructed to run the critique, and the "informality" was a lack of training. This is probably due to convenience, and I struggle to think of an operationally reasonable and feasible way to actually "be a fly on the wall" to capture informal critique when it happens. Immersive ethnography would certainly do it, but it might take forever to show up in action, and it may never show up at all.

It's interesting but not surprising that students are kind to one-another in this form of activity, and that the kindness is perceived as the primary value of peer-to-peer critique. The idea of "criticism" is actually not relevant in a meaningful way at all, and this may point to an overly broad positioning of what the "ritual of critique" actually is or means. I would imagine that a group of older students providing comments to younger students would be "nerfed" (at least by most people with a small degree of empathy), and probably bleed into discussion of the class, the professor, the difficult level, and so-on ("When I was in this class, the professor…") and that has real community-building value but is not about highlighting things that Are Bad and Can Be Made Good.

There is an underlying premise in peer-to-peer critique, if it is really a critique about the work, that students can provide useful and accurate (whatever that means) input on design. Over the course of four years, it's certainly true that their judgment, taste, and skill should be improving in tandem, but even as a senior, they are still a student, and comments they make may be simply wrong, just due to their inexperience. It feels like there's a balance here between getting a hug and gathering actual data on improving work. Both are needed. They are different. When they cross, I think you end up with something bizarre.

Perhaps one leads to the other: having lots of hugs early means you build trust, and so you can hear much more negative real criticism of the work without taking it personally.

More citations, but I think I already have read/queued up these:

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

Cennamo, K. (2014). In education we all want to be nice: Lessons learned from a multidisciplinary design studio. In B. Hokanson & A. S. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio (pp. 57–73). New York: Springer.

Cennamo, K. (2016).What is studio? In E. Boling, R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K.M. Smith,& K. Campbell (Eds.), Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases (pp. 248–259). New York: Routledge.

Cennamo, K., & Brandt, C. (2012). The "right kind of telling": knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 839–858.

Dannels, D. P., & Martin, K. N. (2008). Critiquing critiques: a genre analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(2), 135– 159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651907311923.

Thiessen, M. (2017). I don't know, I just like it: exploring how design students think about criticism. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 16(2), 145–156. . 16.2.145_1.