The style and goals of design critique pedagogy: how to bring criticism to life in the studio classroom

Overview

Design, art and architecture education all have a shared practice called critique. This practice is considered a fundamental part of learning to be a practitioner, on equal footing to the acquisition of core skills. Some scholars feel that critique isn't just an isolated practice; instead, it defines the entire educational experience, where "the tradition of ongoing and reciprocal performance punctuated by criticism is so central to the pedagogy of the design studio that it is not considered assessment at all. Rather, it is the essence of instruction" (Cossentino, 2002, p. 44Cossentino, J., 2002.)—it is the "active pedagogy of the studio" (Hokanson, 2012, p. 74). Hokanson, B., 2012. DOI The phenomenon of critique is well studied in academic research, but there is substantial evidence that the learnings from empirical research have not found their way into the practice of educators, who often include critique in their educational approaches but without a strong sense of pedagogical purpose (Percy, 2004; Percy, C., 2004. DOI Webster, 2007; Webster, H., 2007. DOI Blair, 2007Blair, B., 2007. DOI).

There are many reasons for this. One reason is that the word critique is overly inclusive in the context of design education. It is used broadly to mean a one-on-one conversation with a professor, a final exhibition, an assessment, a public activity, a private activity, and so on. Another reason may be the relationship of the word critique to the colloquial usage of criticism, which implies the delivery of bad news. And another reason may be because of the historic mimicking that occurs in many fields, where professors teach what they learned, assuming without question that it was a sound and thoughtful methodology.

To purposefully embrace and refine a pedagogical style for teaching with critique effectively, an educator needs to question all of these things: the broad meaning of critique, the link between critique and classroom activity, and the efficacy of their own educational experiences with critique. It is helpful when questioning to start with a structure, and that is the purpose of this text: to provide a survey-influenced framework of various styles and goals of critique, which an educator can then reflect upon, synthesize, and make their own. The text is not intended to prescribe a teaching pedagogy, even if any given approach seems to be miseducative, as some of the approaches will appear. I have noticed that when a professor teaches with intent, they tend to be more successful—even when the approach is questionable—than when they simply follow precedent with little question.

There are two parts to design critique pedagogy that will be discussed. The first is the style of critique: the posture or disposition of the instructor and how that influences the critique experience. The intent of a discussion of styles is, in overly simplistic terms, to provide a menu of choices for how to bring critique into a course. The second is the goal of critique, and the intent of describing each goal is to add clarity to the muddiness that is present by using one word to mean so many things. Together, style and goal provide the basis for a teaching theory and strategy of criticism, and the main contribution of this text is to illustrate how style and goal can blend into forms of meaningful teaching practice. This is illustrated in the third section through examples, showing how a purposefully selected teaching style and a pragmatic sense of studio purpose leads to methods, expectations, and the development of unique studio culture.

The style of design critique

A pedagogical style is the posture or disposition of the instructor and how that influences the critique experience. The posture is enacted through tone and demeanor; it acts as a stance. Scholarly research describes several unique styles of critique. In brief, and then described in depth below, these include:

1. Providing expert judgment, where a professor takes a declarative stance directed towards the "right way of doing things."
2. Encouraging shared inquiry, where a balance of Socratic and collaborative discussion leads to growth.
3. Demonstrating skills, where a professor models a corrective behavior or approach in real-time.
4. Confrontation, where critique is blunt and direct in order to reinforce urgency or power.
5. Performing a ritual, where a critique becomes a show in support of a way of being.

Critique as expert judgment

A critique style that likely is confusing for students who emerge from a traditional secondary school, where grading is thought to be about being correct or incorrect, is one based on expert judgment, where the professor's role is that of master and they deliver assertions about what is good or bad.

The professor speaks, theoretically, from a position of expertise, assessing quality and projecting a sense of responsibility to maintain disciplinary standards. The assumption of mastery may not be accurate, as not all professors are practicing designers or architects. They may claim mastery of teaching, but not of the act of designing itself. But even in these cases, the professor is positioned as an autocratic source of truth.

For students, this expert-oriented critique can feel both clarifying and disempowering. Students may appreciate the decisiveness of declarative feedback, seeking objective and clarifying criticism in what is often an ambiguous creative context. But expert-led critique can position students as passive receivers of knowledge who simply listen, take notes, and accept judgments without debate. Students develop coping strategies in response: over-preparing, listening passively, and agreeing with comments they may not fully understand (Webster, 2007, p. 24). Webster, H., 2007. DOI This reinforces their position as receivers of knowledge rather than active participants in shaping it, leaving "little space for students to communicate through critique" (Gray, 2013, p. 196). Gray, C. M., 2013. DOI Even pedagogical models often cited as progressive reinforce the imbalance. Schön's reflective practice, for instance, is criticized for case studies where the professor primarily disseminates knowledge one way (Mewburn, 2012). Mewburn, I., 2012. DOI Similarly, there is "little evidence of students being taught the skills of critical reflection and argument," which leaves student comments ignored (Percy, 2004, p. 147). Percy, C., 2004. DOI

Mechanically, expert-led critique is often conducted at a student's desk or in large groups with work pinned to the wall. In larger settings, many students sit in the background—sometimes unable to see what is being discussed—and remain disengaged, while the professor speaks with little interruption (Blair, 2007, p. 84). Blair, B., 2007. DOI Such critiques tend to be frequent, and their efficacy depends heavily on the personality and communicative ability of the teacher (Goldschmidt, et al., 2010). Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H. & Dafni, I., 2010. DOI Authoritative critiques also often mix formative and summative goals, simultaneously guiding and evaluating in ways that confuse students about purpose (Healy, 2016). Healy, J. P., 2016. DOI

The value of an expert judgment critique lies in its efficiency and potential for clarity. It allows experienced practitioners to transmit knowledge quickly, to model standards, and to ensure that students are exposed to professional norms. When time is limited, or when students need to become "unblocked," authority can provide decisive guidance. It can also lend a sense of seriousness to the studio: what the professor says carries weight, and students may feel more motivated to align their work with professional expectations. And when a professor is familiar with the hiring expectations of industry, career-minded students will likely value this expert judgment, as it gestures towards job readiness.

However, this form of critique privileges the professor's voice over the student's. It provides a monologue rather than encourages a dialogue, where judgments are framed as objective but rest on subjective criteria such as whether work is "interesting" or "compelling" (Blair, 2007, p. 84;Blair, B., 2007. DOI Orr & Bloxham, 2012, p. 236). Orr, S. & Bloxham, S., 2012. DOI The persistence of this model reflects its familiarity to other forms of teaching, such as traditional lectures, and its assumption that the professor's role is to "know" while the student's role is to "learn." As a style of critique, it highlights the tension between disciplinary authority and the pedagogical need for students to find their own voices within that authority.

Critique as shared inquiry

An inquiry-based, collaborative critique is a conversational learning experience where meaning is negotiated, ideas are explored, and learning emerges through back-and-forth exchange. In this form of critique, the professor's role is to question, probe, compare, and provoke discussion. Rather than declaring judgments, the professor asks why a student made a choice, what alternatives they considered, or how the work might be understood differently. This has been described as an improvisational mode of coaching—teaching-as-improvisation, where the critic says "yes, and…" to extend a student's reasoning or deliberately breaks the fourth wall to redirect their thinking (Adams, et al., 2017).

Students in exploratory and dialogue-centric critiques are positioned as co-participants. They are expected to articulate intentions, respond to questions, and give room to changing their opinions and reasoning, in real-time. Peer critique functions in this way—students test ideas, negotiate interpretations, and learn to balance subjectivity and objectivity within the context of their unique worldview (Gray, 2013). Gray, C. M., 2013. DOI Inquiry may also take the form of structured debate, with students actively arguing strengths and weaknesses in their peers' work. This debate framing is felt to minimize defensiveness, offset tension, and reduce embarrassment in responding to negative comments (Crolla, et al., 2019). Crolla, K., Hodgson, P. & Ho, A. W. Y., 2019. DOI

The mechanics of inquiry-based critique vary. They can occur at a student's desk, in peer-to-peer discussions, or in small group. Discussion often includes comparative discussions in which a professor highlights a problem, establishes a framework for interpreting it critically, applies that framework to the student's work, and then relates it to a real-world example—"reanimating" the student's work in the process (Murphy, et al., 2012, p. 537). Murphy, K. M., Ivarsson, J. & Lymer, G., 2012. DOI This style is critique-as-collaboration, emphasizing values of trust, specificity, and integrity as conditions for genuine dialogue and describing critique as a "generous and generative collaborative practice" (Forlano & Smith, 2018, p. 295). Forlano, L. & Smith, S., 2018. DOI

Inquiry-based critique is valuable because it builds critical evaluation and communication skills alongside design skills. Students learn not just what to change but how to reason about change. Critique socializes students into disciplinary communication practices—managing interaction, demonstrating design evolution, and advocating intent (Dannels, et al., 2008). Dannels, D. P., Housley Gaffney, A. & Norris Martin, K., 2008. DOI Sawyer's (2017) Sawyer, R. K., 2017. DOI systematic review of studio pedagogy reinforces the point: exploratory, improvisational teaching is one of the defining features of creative learning environments, balancing open-ended inquiry with structure. The studio environment itself also leads to informal versions of this approach, as student-to-student encounters occur naturally and provide opportunities for peer criticism and learning (Corazzo, 2019);Corazzo, J., 2019. DOI access to physical studio space and desk space become keys for students to initiate these informal critiques (Forlano & Smith, 2018, p. 288). Forlano, L. & Smith, S., 2018. DOI

Dialogue requires trust and time, both of which are often scarce in studio settings. Faculty may intend conversation but slip back into monologue, dominating the discussion despite their intentions (Goldschmidt, et al., 2010, p. 300). Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H. & Dafni, I., 2010. DOI Students may also find exploratory critiques frustrating when they desire clarity or objectivity, perceiving open-ended and Socratic feedback as evasive, pedantic, or contradictory (Blair, 2007, p. 86). Blair, B., 2007. DOI Dialogue can also privilege articulate or confident students, leaving quieter students marginalized. And it assumes students already know how to contribute meaningfully; peer critique is often expected to help socialize students into professional norms (Healy, 2016, p. 7), Healy, J. P., 2016. DOI yet others question this assumption, pointing out that students often lack the skills of argumentation or the grounding in ideology and history to make their contributions valuable (Percy, 2004, p. 147). Percy, C., 2004. DOI

Exploratory critique is one of the most generative styles of design pedagogy. It shifts critique from judgment to inquiry and from one-way dissemination to collaboration. It aligns with contemporary emphases on reflective practice, peer learning, equitable learning experiences, and safe spaces for growth.

Critique as demonstration

In a demonstration-based critique, the experience is less about dialogue or judgment in isolation, and instead, grounds dialogue in modeling: the professor shows what to do, and the student learns by observing, doing, and being corrected in real-time. This approach is professor-centric, but also artifact-centric, as the thing being made becomes a central point for discussion. The professor in a didactic critique like this takes on the role of master craftsperson. This is cognitive apprenticeship: the professor articulates, models, and critiques (Adams, et al., 2017). They may correct a student's work by literally drawing over it. Professional designers who teach often rely on this way of teaching, building on their own practices to exemplify how design gets done in a real job context (Sawyer, 2017, p. 107). Sawyer, R. K., 2017. DOI

Demonstration critiques are often one-on-one, informal, and occur during a project. They typically happen at a desk or side-by-side at a computer. Hokanson (2012, pp. 78-79) Hokanson, B., 2012. DOI describes this as an "intense personal engagement" and that, because a studio is an open environment, other students are "developing an understanding of the value of critique through incidental learning."

Demonstration-based critique remains one of the most recognizable forms in design education—it is the popular culture view of an art school education, appearing from the outside to be poorly structured, as no lecture is occurring and few students are quietly taking notes. It is the closest remaining model to a master/apprentice approach to learning, at scale. The role of the student is to watch closely, to imitate, and to internalize the moves demonstrated by the instructor. Students in desk crits absorb the "teacher as coach" mode, where demonstration and correction dominate (Goldschmidt, et al., 2010, p. 286). Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H. & Dafni, I., 2010. DOI In this mode, students may feel reassured, because the path forward is shown rather than left ambiguous. They can see the expert at work, and this makes expectations tangible. The value of demonstration-based critique is in making tacit knowledge visible, which may be difficult or impossible for an expert to describe rather than show.

But, this form of critique introduces learning challenges, too. Students may copy without understanding, and because this approach relies so much on instructor skills, they may end up duplicating poor examples and adopting poor practice, particularly if the professor is not current with methodology or skilled in practice. Improvisational and demonstration-based teaching must balance showing with encouraging independent exploration, or this form of critique may train technical skills but not larger strategic or critical thinking. And, as demonstration-based critique is frequently conducted in a close, intimate setting, it demands respect, trust, specificity, clarity, insight, and integrity (Forlano & Smith, 2018, p. 284). Forlano, L. & Smith, S., 2018. DOI If that trust was never formed, a demonstration-based critique may quickly turn defensive.

Critique as confrontation

The next style of critique is a confrontational critique, where the professor and invited practitioners establish a presence of a true "critic"—someone to challenge and point out things that are flawed. This tests the student's capacity to defend their ideas, or even ignores the student as a relevant participant entirely. A professor may feel a sense of duty in this role, believing that design students must develop resilience to thrive in the professional world; they may even repeat the adversarial modes they themselves experienced, seeing them as authentic to the discipline.

Students, however, consistently feel this differently. This form of critique is not viewed positively by students, who describe it as high-stress and "nerve wracking" and recall all-night preparation that left them too tired and anxious to absorb feedback. They feel that confrontational critiques do not result in actionable feedback; instead of learning how to improve their work, they learn only that it is bad. This highlights the subjectivity of taste, likely privileging the professor's own preferences. Scholars frame this as an exercise of disciplinary power rather than teaching: the crit produces subjects who accept professional authority (Webster, 2007, p. 21). Webster, H., 2007. DOI Adversarial discussion may disengage weaker students, who perceive the attack as confirmation of failure (Blair, 2007). Blair, B., 2007. DOI Even stronger students may come away from the experience confused by conflicting criticism. In a survey by Sara and Parnell,Sara, R. & Parnell, R., 2013. students valued critique in principle, but remembered fear and humiliation in practice, suggesting that adversarial critique undermines the learning it intends to enable. They also pointed to educators themselves as a problem, who may change their opinion to match that of an invited guest, act unengaged, interrupt, show a lack of respect, and show a lack of understanding (Sara & Parnell, 2013, p. 113).Sara, R. & Parnell, R., 2013.

Advocates for a confrontational approach might argue that critique should be preparation for the realities of professional practice, where clients and stakeholders may not be kind or thoughtful in delivering their opinions. This confrontational style can be framed as building "thick skin." It forces students to defend their work under pressure, to withstand scrutiny, and to respond to hostility. Through conflict may come resolution, which can improve creative output.

This form of critique persists because it is woven into the traditions of design education and because it aligns with cultural narratives of toughness, authenticity, and professional initiation. It can create strong memories for students who experience it. But more often it serves to alienate, silence, or harm. As a style of critique, it reveals the problem of nostalgia at the heart of historical pedagogy: the desire to induct students into the discipline's ways of knowing and the temptation to exercise authority through confrontation.

Critique as ritual performance

Critique often functions less as evaluation than as performance. Scholars describe it as choreographed and staged, with students expected to rehearse their roles, follow a script, and perform before an audience (Blair, 2007, p. 88;Blair, B., 2007. DOI Dannels, et al., 2008, Dannels, D. P., Housley Gaffney, A. & Norris Martin, K., 2008. DOI p. 9; Crolla, et al., 2019, p. 4). Crolla, K., Hodgson, P. & Ho, A. W. Y., 2019. DOI Students are asked to focus not only on the work they present but also on the performance of presenting it. Faculty construct a stage literally in the arrangement of space and in the presence of an audience of colleagues, guests, and sometimes invited "rock star" designers. The wall of pinned work functions as a prop, a vertical stage set that mediates the connection between student and audience (Dannels, 2005, p. 147). Dannels, D. P., 2005. DOI

This performative quality places critique within a broader cultural and social context. It enacts traditions and values of the institution itself, reliving the historical roots of design pedagogy for a contemporary audience (Forlano & Smith, 2018, p. 285). Forlano, L. & Smith, S., 2018. DOI In this sense, critique operates as a rite of passage enculturating students into the customs, habits, and skills of professional practice (McDonald, et al., 2018, p. 150). McDonald, J. K., Rich, P. J. & Gubler, N. B., 2018. DOI Its function is not primarily about improving, but instead about positioning students within a disciplinary community, signaling that they are becoming "real" designers.

The lore of critique shows up here, heavily. Webster (2007) Webster, H., 2007. DOI recalls stories of juries holding on to "folklore", such as Mies van der Rohe ripping student drawings from the wall, which are largely myths that communicate the stakes and dangers of public judgment. At its most extreme, critique becomes less about learning and more about spectacle.

Performative critique serves a cultural role. It connects students to disciplinary traditions, dramatizes expectations of professional presentation and defense, and creates a shared ritual of belonging. But its theatrical nature can also amplify hierarchy, obscure feedback, and elevate performance over learning.

The goal of design critique

The styles of critique described above provide the way a professor and a student experience critique. Critique is in service of a purpose, and the goal of critique describes what an instructor hopes to accomplish through including these moments in their curricular design. These goals, described below, include:

1. Assessing work and skills, to provide a grade or determination of progress.
2. Helping students improve their skills, craft, methods and processes.
3. Preparing students for professional practice, where work is held up to constant scrutiny and various opinions.
4. Building studio community, so students can learn to work in a collaborative fashion.
5. Supporting institutional motives, often seemingly removed from the immediacy of teaching and learning.

I want to assess students' work or skills

Perhaps the most conventional goal of critique—and the one most closely aligned with the everyday meaning of "criticism" as judgment—is assessment. Here, critique is primarily about evaluating what a student has designed, or, more rarely, their ability to design. Assessment can occur at multiple points in a course, but it most often takes place at the end of a project, serving as a formal grading opportunity. As Healy (2016, p. 5) Healy, J. P., 2016. DOI notes, end-of-project critiques are more formal and "focus more on product or outcome as opposed to process." At that stage, the educational value is limited because students may be too fatigued to integrate feedback, or the project may already be concluded. Artifact-based assessment shifts a burden of translation to a student: they must find ways to translate points of criticism from one artifact and project to their next, which requires fairly significant styles of abstraction and pattern-building.

The attraction of assessment is in its promise of fairness and rigor. A rubric-based assessment can, theoretically, reassure a student that it is their work and not themself that is being judged. It implies professionalism and impartiality, embedding design education in broader academic systems of grading, accreditation, and accountability. For institutions, objectivity is essential, because standards must be seen as transparent, equitable, and reproducible, even in creative fields.

For students, the appeal of objective critique is clarity. Feedback framed in terms of external conventions—"this drawing is not in perspective," or "this interface violates accessibility standards"—is more actionable and less personal than being told that work is "uninspired" or "weak". Students often ask for feedback that feels "straightforward, honest, [and] constructive" (Blair, 2007, p. 86). Blair, B., 2007. DOI When assessment can point to agreed-upon standards, it positions critique as a tool for learning rather than as an arbitrary judgment.

But much of design is subjective, and translating a professor's observations into a grade is never straightforward. The "translation" from what is said in critique to the score that appears on a transcript is often disappointing or confusing to students. Williams, Ostwald, and Askland (2010) argue that in practice, student work is graded without criteria, and Orr and Bloxham (2012) Orr, S. & Bloxham, S., 2012. DOI show that many artists and designers see their fields as un-assessable, due to their subjectivity.

I want to help students improve

One of the most widely assumed goals of critique is to help students make better work, refine their craft, and develop more thoughtful or effective processes. This is the basis of formative critique, where professor/student engagement occurs during a project and can be acted upon before the project is complete. With a focus on improvement of project work, critique can draw attention to what is effective or ineffective in a student's artifact and offer suggestions for revision. Students likely respond positively when feedback is actionable—when it points to something concrete that can be changed—rather than when it is vague or taste-driven.

When critique is aimed more at improving craft rather than improving an artifact, it recognizes that individual projects are simply means towards larger learning ends. Design educators typically aren't encouraging students to make one thing (only toasters) or one type of thing (only kitchen appliances); instead, they are trying to teach students a way of working across content. This means they need to develop skills, processes, and methods that can be learned in specific, but evolved to become patterned and broadly applicable. Critique, in the context of improving the maturity of a student's abilities, is about developing transferable practices.

Improving process emphasizes iteration and experimentation, and further rests on and grows the skill of reflection in action. Rather than talking only about the finished drawing or prototype, critique highlights how the student is working—whether they are testing alternatives, documenting decisions, or showing evolution of ideas. Instructors may even model the process directly, sketching over a student's drawing or reframing their concept as a way of demonstrating what iteration looks like in practice. This underscores one of the hardest lessons for novices: that design work is not precious. It can and should be reworked, discarded, and rebuilt as part of a larger trajectory of growth.

Critique intended to improve also can work towards shaping and changing a student's creative attitude. Critique helps students learn to listen without defensiveness, to translate feedback into tasks, and to persist even when ideas are challenged. These lessons of resilience, openness, and flexibility are often as valuable as the specific design skills acquired. Students come to understand that improvement is not just about the artifact in front of them but about the mindset they carry into future projects.

I want to prepare students for the realities of professional practice

Undergraduate design education is increasingly aimed at preparing students for careers, and critique is often positioned as a rehearsal space for professional practice. In this framing, the goal is not simply to improve a project but to help students acquire the habits, skills, and dispositions needed to function as professional designers. Students learn to handle the mechanics of critique in ways that mirror professional workflows: clearly describing the problem they are trying to solve, taking notes, asking clarifying questions, and avoiding unproductive argument. They also learn that they don't actually have to implement every piece of feedback, and it may be important to show that they have listened and that others have been heard.

A recurring justification for critique is the development of "thick skin." Outside the relatively protected space of academia, creative work is often subject to blunt, uneducated, or even hostile responses. Critique provides students with a controlled version of that experience. They practice separating themselves from their work, resisting defensiveness, and absorbing criticism without feeling personally diminished.

Professionalism also includes the language and demeanor of creative practice. Critique helps students learn how to talk about design work, to use (or avoid the use of) disciplinary-specific vocabulary, and to frame creative choices with confidence. Students learn to treat their work as not as a precious artifact but as something always open to revision. They also learn how to deliver constructive criticism, how to accept it, and how to participate in conflict productively rather than defensively.

Critique also prepares students for the political dimensions of creative practice. In professional settings, ideas rarely succeed on their merits alone; they must be presented, defended, and socialized among diverse stakeholders. Critique offers a space to practice telling the story of a design. Students learn to view presentation as a form of influence: controlling a room, soliciting opinions selectively, shaping perceptions, and slowly guiding others to integrate new ideas into their worldviews. These rhetorical and political skills are learned, not innate, and critique provides a place to rehearse them.

I want to build a sense of studio community

Another goal of critique is to foster a sense of community among students. Because much of design education occurs in the only semi-private space of the studio, critique serves as one of the most visible collective practices. Its function is not only about working with one individual student, but also about strengthening the bonds of a learning cohort through collective or simultaneous learning.

Through critique, students see how their peers approach problems, and ideally, they learn to work collaboratively rather than competitively. As a ritual, critique signals that students are all "on the same team," and while students are pursuing their own independent growth, it gives a sense of a shared outcome. Community-oriented critique also creates opportunities for students to learn how to work through disagreement in a constructive way, watching others negotiate feedback and participating themselves.

I want to support institutional motives

Some goals of critique are less pedagogical than political. The "event of critique" may be used to advance institutional or professional agendas. Faculty may invite industry guests less for students' benefit than to cultivate relationships, pursue research funding, or strengthen job pipelines, and critique offers a way for a guest to feel like they are experiencing the "realness" of education. In these cases, critique becomes a stage for networking or advancement rather than a learning exercise, and students may find themselves performing for outsiders who hold important-sounding titles. These outsiders may be invited to provide their own opinions, but have not had an opportunity to establish any relationship with the students themselves, and likely have never learned how to be on the delivery side of creative criticism.

Critique can also function as a mechanism of exclusion. Programs sometimes use critique as "weed-out" devices, either by converting formative feedback into summative elimination or by making negative assessments so pointed and public that students self-select out.

While few would describe these as appropriate goals for higher education, they persist, sometimes intentionally, sometimes under pressure from institutional culture or administrative expectations.

Blending styles and goals to support learning through critique

A design critique pedagogy emerges when a style of criticism coincides with a particular goal of criticism. The above styles and goals have been presented as mutually exclusive, but in practice, they overlap and bleed into one-another, often in real-time in any one situation. Strong teaching is highly context-specific, and any overlapping of these attributes may be valuable at different times and with different students. But if the combining is not done purposefully, the result may be confusing and unpredictable to students.

The practical goal of this text is to show how these blendings may be used strategically, and how they come to life in the classroom. This is best demonstrated through example scenarios. These scenarios, observed in real design studios, represent only a small set of the fundamental parts of design education and growth.

Learning to sketch ideas

I want to grade if students can draw in perspective accurately. I use a form of shared inquiry combined with real-time demonstration because I believe grading process is more important than grading outcome. One-by-one, I have students come sketch with me in a quiet corner of the studio. I sketch next to them, and sometimes draw directly on top of their work to correct mistakes. I describe specific problems I'm observing, offer exercises for them to practice, complete an assessment form in front of them—with an assigned grade—and ask if they have questions about it.

In this scenario, a professor—recognizing that assigning grades is a part of their job and can offer an objective measure to students—is treating assessment as a collaborative learning experience. The instructor makes it clear not only what a student has done poorly, but how to improve it; as the subject matter of perspective drawing is visual, the professor shows, rather than simply tells. They make the criteria for the grade they give clear, and offer opportunities for the student to understand and even challenge the grade they are going to receive.

The professor takes on the simultaneous role of evaluator and demonstrator, making assessment criteria visible and modeling how feedback can be applied in practice. Students are expected to treat critique as an active exercise, where they question, correct, and iterate. This critique approach can reinforce a culture of trust by making evaluation transparent and inclusive. However, it reinforces the power dynamic between a professor and a student, made highly visible by the imbalance of skill between the two, and while the critique occurs in relative privacy, a student is still exposed to their peers, which is likely to increase anxiety.

Learning to give room to new ideas

I want students to explore beyond their first solution to a problem. I use demonstration and encourage community participation in critique because I believe seeing alternatives unlocks a growth mindset. I select a weak idea from one student who has taken a rigid stance on their work, and have everyone in the class draw alternatives of that idea. I draw, too. We hold a class critique of the whole set of ideas at once.

In this scenario, a professor observes that a student is reluctant to let go of an idea, perhaps because it was so difficult for them to come up with it in the first place. Rather than pointing out the negative qualities of the idea that was made, students can learn by seeing and copying alternatives. Encouraging the whole class to focus on expanding one idea makes it clear that ideation is open-ended, and a student will feel noticed and supported as they shift their perspective to one that is open to alternatives.

By guiding the class to reimagine a single idea, the professor models iteration while students learn that their ideas are not precious. This approach can build a culture of shared ownership, as students see creativity as collaborative and generative. However, this approach singles out a student who is struggling, and puts them in the spotlight. Some students excel in this role, but many don't, and this critique approach requires an intimate relationship between a professor and their students, and a careful eye for when a student has nearly reached a boundary of their feelings of safety.

Learning to receive feedback

I want students to learn to accept feedback without defensiveness. I use a confrontational style of critique because I believe practicing under pressure builds resilience. I draw something and have students provide confrontational feedback to me; I purposefully act overly defensive, and then students critique my response.

In this scenario, a professor feels that a defensive posture is a natural reaction to a threat, and students may feel threatened when they present things they have created—they may view their identity as intertwined with the design they have created and so may transfer criticism inwards. One way to work through this defensiveness is by role-playing confrontation, where criticism is purposefully intended to provoke defensiveness and the class can reflect on the experience. The situation is modeled: by switching roles between professor and student, a difficult power dynamic is diffused. Students practice observing not only content but ways to respond to feedback, building awareness of how to engage in dialogue around a creative artifact.

But while this helps build resilience, it risks trivializing anxiety and normalizing a view of critique as hostile; students may learn to participate in the process more effectively, but in doing so, may continue to perpetuate the negative stereotypes of criticism as ritual.

Learning to work on real-world projects

I want students to understand what designing feels like in a more "true-to-life" context. I create regular check-ins with simulated one-directional, ambiguous feedback, because I feel students can learn from feelings of frustration. Once a week, I invite practitioners to visit studio and circulate from desk to desk. I ask them ahead of time to purposefully provide contradictory, incomplete and assertive creative direction—and I tell the students to expect that form of conflicting criticism. At the end of each class, the students discuss ways to react to what they heard.

In this scenario, a professor understands that, in industry, students will interact with a variety of stakeholders who have different opinions, many of which may feel uninformed. The instructor wants the students to practice hearing what that type of critique sounds like. They purposefully position themselves as a facilitator rather than delivering the poorly-constructed comments directly, to ensure their role continues as a trusted guide. The students hear that the activity will be a simulation, and by viewing it as a purposeful teaching approach, students are "eased" into a real-world demeanor and culture.

This can empower students to advocate for their work and to manage conversations with stakeholders, which is an increasingly large part of working in a corporation. But storytelling may become more important than designing, and without a base of core skills, this critique style may lead to charismatic students who can't actually design.

Supporting intentional critique

Pedagogy comes to life when styles and goals of critique blend together. The scenarios above are clearly not exhaustive, but show how critique can be transformed from a simple, predictable, and potentially miseducative activity into a deliberate teaching strategy. In a design studio, critique is an interaction that needs to be designed, and as each moment of critique is different, each requires unique consideration and planning. Over time, that planning leads to patterning, and those patterns lead to tacit approaches to teaching and learning—the "art of teaching," or, in this case, the "art of critique."

In Summary: bringing criticism to life in the studio classroom

This paper has mapped critique across two dimensions: styles as the postures instructors adopt in practice, and goals as the purpose of including critique in the curriculum. These dimensions overlap and merge, illustrating that critique is not a single practice but a set of approaches. Successfully introducing an approach into a learning experience depends on alignment between intent and enactment.

This enactment, broadly, is the thread through all styles and goals—critique pedagogy should be thoughtfully planned and considered, but when it is brought to life in the studio, its value depends on the unique circumstances of the situation. When the elements of design critique pedagogy are misaligned with that situation, a critique experience risks becoming creatively counterproductive, as it can alienate students, reinforce hierarchy, or trivialize learning as merely performance. When style and goal are intentionally aligned with a learning experience, critique can support assessment, improve craft, prepare students for professional practice, and build studio community. Under a guiding ethos and on the way to achieving various learning goals, a professor's design critique pedagogy needs to be flexible and the selection of approach needs to be deliberate. The challenge for educators is not to select the "right" style or goal, but to blend and align them deliberately.

References

1. Adams, R., Forin, T. R. & Joslyn, C. H., 2017. Approaches to Coaching Students in Design Reviews. Columbus, American Society For Engineering Education.
2. Al Maani, D. & Roberts, A., 2023. An attempt to understand the design studio as a distinctive pedagogical setting. The International Journal of Design Education, Volume 17, p. 31–44.
3. 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, Volume 5, p. 83–95.
4. Cennamo, K. & Brandt, C., 2012. The "right kind of telling": Knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research and Development, Volume 60, p. 839–858.
5. Corazzo, J., 2019. Materialising the studio: A systematic review of the role of the material space of the studio in Art, Design and Architecture Education. The Design Journal, Volume 22, p. 1249–1265.
6. Cossentino, J., 2002. Importing Artistry: further lessons from the design studio. Reflective Practice, 3(1), pp. 39-52.
7. Crolla, K., Hodgson, P. & Ho, A. W. Y., 2019. ‘Peer Critique’ in Debate: A pedagogical tool for teaching Architectural Design Studio. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Volume 13.
8. Dannels, D. P., 2005. Performing tribal rituals: A genre analysis of "crits" in design studios. Communication Education, Volume 54, p. 136–160.
9. Dannels, D. P., Housley Gaffney, A. & Norris 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, Volume 2, p. Article 12.
10. Forlano, L. & Smith, S., 2018. Critique as collaboration in design anthropology. Journal of Business Anthropology, Volume 7, p. 279–300.
11. Goldschmidt, G., Hochman, H. & Dafni, I., 2010. The design studio "crit": Teacher–student communication. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Volume 24, p. 285–302.
12. Gray, C. M., 2013. Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio. Art Design & Communication in Higher Education, Volume 12, p. 195–209.
13. Healy, J. P., 2016. The components of the "crit" in art and design education. DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals.
14. Hokanson, B., 2012. The Design Critique as a Model for Distributed Learning. In: The Next Generation of Distance Education. Boston: Springer, pp. 71-82.
15. McDonald, J. K., Rich, P. J. & Gubler, N. B., 2018. The perceived value of informal, peer critique in the instructional design studio. TechTrends, Volume 63, p. 149–159.
16. Mewburn, I., 2012. Lost in translation: Reconsidering reflective practice and design studio pedagogy. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, Volume 11, p. 363–379.
17. Murphy, K. M., Ivarsson, J. & Lymer, G., 2012. Embodied reasoning in architectural critique. Design Studies, Volume 33, p. 530–556.
18. Orr, S. & Bloxham, S., 2012. Making judgements about students making work: Lecturers’ assessment practices in art and design. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, December, 12(2-3), pp. 234-253.
19. Percy, C., 2004. Critical absence versus critical engagement: Problematics of the crit in design learning and teaching. Art Design & Communication in Higher Education, Volume 2, p. 143–154.
20. Sara, R. & Parnell, R., 2013. Fear and learning in the architectural crit. Field, Volume 5, p. 101–126.
21. Sawyer, R. K., 2017. Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, Volume 22, pp. 99-113.
22. Webster, H., 2007. The analytics of power. Journal of Architectural Education, Volume 60, p. 21–27.