1.
Emergent Critique in
Informal Design Talk
Reflections of Surface, Pedagogical,
and Epistemological Features in an HCI Studio
Colin M. Gray
November 28, 2013

2.
background
Understanding communication between
students in non-classroom spaces
Using this understanding of the studio
through enactment of critique to
conceptualize the hidden curriculum

3.
research
questions
What informal interactions are taking place
between students in the design studio?
How are these interactions instigating critique?

4.
review of
literature

5.
literature
Existing research on conceptualizing critique activity
Process model (Oh, et al., 2012)
Development of understanding (Exter, et al., 2009)
Genres (Dannels & Martin, 2008)
Types of knowledge (Uluoglu, 2000)

6.
literature
CLASSROOM CRITIQUE
Oh, et al. (2012) process model of critiquing

7.
literature
Shaffer’s Theoretical Model of the Studio (Shaffer, 2003)
Surface Features
Pedagogical Structures
Epistemology

8.
context

9.
context
Human-Computer Interaction design (HCI/d) program in a
School of Informatics
Non-classroom studio with no dedicated space

10.
data
Critical Ethnography (Spring 2013)
Participant Observation (150 hours)
- thick field notes
- audio recordings (45 hours/150 segments)
- photographs (n=745)
Critical Interview (n=14)
Artifact Analysis

11.
analysis

12.
analysis
Coding of emergent themes across audio segments
Situating these codes in the context of the studio based on
Shaffer’s theoretical model

13.
findings

14.
Instigating
Interaction
#
overheard/seen
16
Design talk or work is overseen or overheard
while working separately
39
Casual greetings; “what are you up to?”; “how
was your weekend?”; friendly talk
12
Displaying finished or in-progress work to others
without provocation
planned/scheduled
53
Request to discuss at some point in the future;
planned meeting
request for advice
30
Explicit request for guidance, opinion, or
interpretation
smalltalk/social talk
showing off
Example Interactions

15.
OVERHEARD/OVERSEEN

16.
SMALLTALK/SOCIAL TALK

17.
SHOWING OFF

18.
PLANNED/SCHEDULED

19.
REQUEST FOR ADVICE

20.
discussion
Shaffer’s Theoretical Model of the Studio (Shaffer, 2003)
Surface Features
Pedagogical Structures
Epistemology

21.
discussion
Surface Features
Physicality of space indicates what kinds of interactions
can be supported
The space was designed for certain types of collaboration
Divide between physical and digital spaces

22.
discussion
Pedagogical Structures
Group projects support collaboration and sharing
Shared pedagogical experience
Representations follow pedagogical structures

23.
discussion
Epistemology
Surface and pedagogical elements of the studio indicate
underlying beliefs
Projection of identity as professional designers
A studio bridge (Brandt, et al., 2011) is co-constructed between
students and the formal pedagogy

24.
next steps

25.
next steps
Broader analysis of data across two semesters of data collection
Focus on instigating interactions, and how and when these
interactions emerge in the studio space
Analysis of how interactions span virtual and physical spaces

26.
questions?