Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Inverting Critique: Emergent Technologically-Mediated Critique Practices of Developing Design Students

223 views

Published on

Critique is the primary method of assessment used in design education, yet is not well understood apart from traditional structures of institutional power and faculty initiation. In this study, we analyze the classroom presentations and critiques of eleven teams in a design-focused human-computer interaction graduate program, focusing on an emergent instructional design for technologically-mediated critique created by experienced students serving as peer mentors. Initial analysis suggests complex interaction between multiple modes of critique beyond the “traditional” critique: 1) public oral critique led by faculty, 2) a critique document authored in Google Docs by experienced students, and 3) backchannel chat in Google Docs by experienced students. These interactions indicate instructional affordances for including many simultaneous users within an existing critique infrastructure. Implications of this instructional design for expanding the capacity of physical critique events and the role of participation in student learning are considered.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Inverting Critique: Emergent Technologically-Mediated Critique Practices of Developing Design Students

  1. 1. INVERTING CRITIQUE: 
 EMERGENT TECHNOLOGICALLY-MEDIATED CRITIQUE PRACTICES OF DEVELOPING DESIGN STUDENTS COLIN M. GRAY Purdue University CRAIG D. HOWARD University of Tennessee—Knoxville
  2. 2. Gray, C. M., & Howard, C. D. (2015, June). “Why are they not responding to critique?”: A student-centered construction  of the crit. In  LearnxDesign: The 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers and PreK-16 Design Educators. Chicago, IL: School of the Art Institute of Chicago. PRIOR WORK
  3. 3. CRITIQUE is central to design education [Anthony, 1991; Dannels & Martin, 2008; Klebesadel & Kornetsky, 2009; Parnell, Sara, Doidge, & Parsons, 2012; Schön, 1987; Shulman, 2005]
  4. 4. instructor-centric curriculum-centric power-laden CRITIQUE is central to design education [Anthony, 1991; Dannels & Martin, 2008; Klebesadel & Kornetsky, 2009; Parnell, Sara, Doidge, & Parsons, 2012; Schön, 1987; Shulman, 2005]
  5. 5. [Anthony, 1991; Blythman, Orr, & Blair, 2007; Dutton, 1991; Gray, 2013, 2014; Gray & Howard 2014; Webster, 2007; Willenbrock, 1991] CRITICAL FRAMING what if we looked at critique in a
  6. 6. [Anthony, 1991; Blythman, Orr, & Blair, 2007; Dutton, 1991; Gray, 2013, 2014; Gray & Howard 2014; Webster, 2007; Willenbrock, 1991] CRITICAL FRAMING what if we looked at critique in a contextualized 
 with PEER ASSESSMENT, DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN EXPERTISE & IDENTITY, CSCL, ETC. [Easterday et al., 2014; Freeman & McKenzie, 2001; Lawson & Dorst, 2009; Schön, 1990; Smith, 2015; Topping, 1998; Xu & Bailey, 2013]
  7. 7. CRITIQUE & 
 CRITICAL PEDAGOGY
  8. 8. CRITIQUE & 
 CRITICAL PEDAGOGY FROM student as tabula rasa TO student as capable,
 emerging proto-professional [Boling, Gray, & Smith, 2015; 
 Gray, 2014; Freire, 1970]
  9. 9. CONTEXT
  10. 10. CONTEXT Human-Computer Interaction Master’s program Introductory project- based design course Final project was based on the 2014 ACM SIGCHI Student Design Competition
  11. 11. CLASSROOM
  12. 12. = Physical Space [~60 student capacity; 8 screens; decentralized layout] Virtual Space [Facebook; Google Docs; SMS] +CLASSROOM
  13. 13. MULTIMODAL CRITIQUE multiple critique conversations occur concurrently around a single designed artifact (or presentation of that artifact), in both physical and virtual modes, with multiple classes or groupings of interlocutors
  14. 14. FIRST-YEAR STUDENT FIRST-YEAR STUDENT (PRESENTING) INSTRUCTOR PROJECTOR/SCREEN WHITEBOARD MENTOR (SECOND-YEAR STUDENT)
  15. 15. LIVE MENTOR CRITIQUE IN GOOGLE DOC
  16. 16. verbally virtually COMMUNICATION DURING PRESENTATION virtually verbally verbally COMMUNICATION DURING CRITIQUE verbally COMMUNICATION PATTERNS
  17. 17. PRESENTATION STUDENT CRITIQUE MENTOR CRITIQUE INSTRUCTOR CRITIQUE GOOGLE DOC CRITIQUE STRUCTURE
  18. 18. 1. What volume of critique did this instructional design support? 2. How did the volume of critique generated via digital means compare to the volume of critique in the physical classroom? 3. What was the nature of critique content that the advanced students generated? RESEARCH QUESTIONS
  19. 19. What volume of critique did this instructional design support? 1
  20. 20. Team Collaborative Google Doc (GD) Backchannel (BC) # 
 Turns [CL*] Average Words per turn (SD) Total words # 
 Turns Average Words per turn (SD) Total words Team A 37 [10] 46.4054 (45.6369) 1717 13 5.1538 (4.4695) 67 Team B 26 [4] 25.8462 (21.6079) 672 69 7.3043 (5.7441) 504 Team C 38 [8] 37.1579 (28.9496) 1412 135 7.1852 (6.6968) 970 Team D 9 [1] 36.8889 (21.1332) 332 9 12.6667 (10.3923) 114 Team E 28 [5] 27.2857 (19.0879) 764 4 5.0000 (2.7386) 20 Team F 27 [1] 39.9259 (35.1683) 1078 116 10.3966 (9.1622) 1206 Team G 16 [1] 47.6875 (34.7234) 763 69 7.4058 (7.1431) 511 Team H 30 [4] 28.2667 (28.5668) 848 49 8.8367 (7.3105) 433 Team I 20 [1] 50.3000 (44.6946) 1006   Team J 19 [3] 31.6316 (20.0846) 601 60 10.6667 (8.3280) 640 Team K 16 [4] 50.4375 (49.0446) 807 61 6.8525 (5.7054) 418 TOTAL 266 [42] 37.594 10000 585 8.3470 4883
  21. 21. Team Collaborative Google Doc (GD) Backchannel (BC) # 
 Turns [CL*] Average Words per turn (SD) Total words # 
 Turns Average Words per turn (SD) Total words Team A 37 [10] 46.4054 (45.6369) 1717 13 5.1538 (4.4695) 67 Team B 26 [4] 25.8462 (21.6079) 672 69 7.3043 (5.7441) 504 Team C 38 [8] 37.1579 (28.9496) 1412 135 7.1852 (6.6968) 970 Team D 9 [1] 36.8889 (21.1332) 332 9 12.6667 (10.3923) 114 Team E 28 [5] 27.2857 (19.0879) 764 4 5.0000 (2.7386) 20 Team F 27 [1] 39.9259 (35.1683) 1078 116 10.3966 (9.1622) 1206 Team G 16 [1] 47.6875 (34.7234) 763 69 7.4058 (7.1431) 511 Team H 30 [4] 28.2667 (28.5668) 848 49 8.8367 (7.3105) 433 Team I 20 [1] 50.3000 (44.6946) 1006   Team J 19 [3] 31.6316 (20.0846) 601 60 10.6667 (8.3280) 640 Team K 16 [4] 50.4375 (49.0446) 807 61 6.8525 (5.7054) 418 TOTAL 266 [42] 37.594 10000 585 8.3470 4883 Average Team Critique 8.0 interlocutors 
 (SD=3.16; min=3; max=14) 15.53 critique acts 
 (SD=11.51; min=1; max=34)
  22. 22. HOW MANY INTERLOCUTORS 
 DO YOU NEED? the top five commenters accounted for 81.70% of all unique critique acts in the Google Docs 
 
 (top 3 = 60.71%)
  23. 23. How did the volume of critique generated via digital means compare to the volume of critique in the physical classroom? 2
  24. 24. Team Presentation Length Critique Length # CL 
 Critique Turns (1Y, 2Y, Inst.) Average CL 
 Critique Turn Length Team A 00:05:35 0:23:54 20 (18/1/1)* 00:01:12 Team B 00:08:44 0:12:06 10 (8/1/1) 00:01:13 Team C 00:07:20 0:20:42 14 (12/1/1) 00:01:29 Team D 00:05:59 0:09:41 14 (8/3/3) 00:00:42 Team E 00:07:26 0:19:57 11 (6/2/3) 00:01:49 Team F 00:06:03 0:17:38 17 (15/1/1) 00:01:02 Team G 00:08:06 0:15:01 17 (11/3/3) 00:00:53 Team H 00:07:56 0:15:18 15 (10/2/3) 00:01:01 Team I 00:06:18 0:12:52 8 (6/1/1) 00:01:37 Team J 00:05:46 0:11:41 12 (9/2/1) 00:00:58 Team K 00:06:17 0:14:09 9 (7/1/1) 00:01:34 TOTAL 01:15:30 (M=00:06:52; SD=00:01:05) 2:52:59 (M=00:15:44; SD=00:04:22) 147 (M=13.36; SD=3.57) (M=00:01:14; 
 SD=00:00:20)
  25. 25. Team Presentation Length Critique Length # CL 
 Critique Turns (1Y, 2Y, Inst.) Average CL 
 Critique Turn Length Team A 00:05:35 0:23:54 20 (18/1/1)* 00:01:12 Team B 00:08:44 0:12:06 10 (8/1/1) 00:01:13 Team C 00:07:20 0:20:42 14 (12/1/1) 00:01:29 Team D 00:05:59 0:09:41 14 (8/3/3) 00:00:42 Team E 00:07:26 0:19:57 11 (6/2/3) 00:01:49 Team F 00:06:03 0:17:38 17 (15/1/1) 00:01:02 Team G 00:08:06 0:15:01 17 (11/3/3) 00:00:53 Team H 00:07:56 0:15:18 15 (10/2/3) 00:01:01 Team I 00:06:18 0:12:52 8 (6/1/1) 00:01:37 Team J 00:05:46 0:11:41 12 (9/2/1) 00:00:58 Team K 00:06:17 0:14:09 9 (7/1/1) 00:01:34 TOTAL 01:15:30 (M=00:06:52; SD=00:01:05) 2:52:59 (M=00:15:44; SD=00:04:22) 147 (M=13.36; SD=3.57) (M=00:01:14; 
 SD=00:00:20) Classroom Critique Acts 147
 (M=13.36; SD=3.57)
  26. 26. Team Presentation Length Critique Length # CL 
 Critique Turns (1Y, 2Y, Inst.) Average CL 
 Critique Turn Length Team A 00:05:35 0:23:54 20 (18/1/1)* 00:01:12 Team B 00:08:44 0:12:06 10 (8/1/1) 00:01:13 Team C 00:07:20 0:20:42 14 (12/1/1) 00:01:29 Team D 00:05:59 0:09:41 14 (8/3/3) 00:00:42 Team E 00:07:26 0:19:57 11 (6/2/3) 00:01:49 Team F 00:06:03 0:17:38 17 (15/1/1) 00:01:02 Team G 00:08:06 0:15:01 17 (11/3/3) 00:00:53 Team H 00:07:56 0:15:18 15 (10/2/3) 00:01:01 Team I 00:06:18 0:12:52 8 (6/1/1) 00:01:37 Team J 00:05:46 0:11:41 12 (9/2/1) 00:00:58 Team K 00:06:17 0:14:09 9 (7/1/1) 00:01:34 TOTAL 01:15:30 (M=00:06:52; SD=00:01:05) 2:52:59 (M=00:15:44; SD=00:04:22) 147 (M=13.36; SD=3.57) (M=00:01:14; 
 SD=00:00:20) Classroom Critique Acts 147
 (M=13.36; SD=3.57) Google Docs Critique Acts 224
 (M=20.36; SD=6.62)
  27. 27. Team Presentation Length Critique Length # CL 
 Critique Turns (1Y, 2Y, Inst.) Average CL 
 Critique Turn Length Team A 00:05:35 0:23:54 20 (18/1/1)* 00:01:12 Team B 00:08:44 0:12:06 10 (8/1/1) 00:01:13 Team C 00:07:20 0:20:42 14 (12/1/1) 00:01:29 Team D 00:05:59 0:09:41 14 (8/3/3) 00:00:42 Team E 00:07:26 0:19:57 11 (6/2/3) 00:01:49 Team F 00:06:03 0:17:38 17 (15/1/1) 00:01:02 Team G 00:08:06 0:15:01 17 (11/3/3) 00:00:53 Team H 00:07:56 0:15:18 15 (10/2/3) 00:01:01 Team I 00:06:18 0:12:52 8 (6/1/1) 00:01:37 Team J 00:05:46 0:11:41 12 (9/2/1) 00:00:58 Team K 00:06:17 0:14:09 9 (7/1/1) 00:01:34 TOTAL 01:15:30 (M=00:06:52; SD=00:01:05) 2:52:59 (M=00:15:44; SD=00:04:22) 147 (M=13.36; SD=3.57) (M=00:01:14; 
 SD=00:00:20) Classroom Critique Acts 147
 (M=13.36; SD=3.57) M = 1 minute, 14 seconds Google Docs Critique Acts 224
 (M=20.36; SD=6.62)
  28. 28. Team Presentation Length Critique Length # CL 
 Critique Turns (1Y, 2Y, Inst.) Average CL 
 Critique Turn Length Team A 00:05:35 0:23:54 20 (18/1/1)* 00:01:12 Team B 00:08:44 0:12:06 10 (8/1/1) 00:01:13 Team C 00:07:20 0:20:42 14 (12/1/1) 00:01:29 Team D 00:05:59 0:09:41 14 (8/3/3) 00:00:42 Team E 00:07:26 0:19:57 11 (6/2/3) 00:01:49 Team F 00:06:03 0:17:38 17 (15/1/1) 00:01:02 Team G 00:08:06 0:15:01 17 (11/3/3) 00:00:53 Team H 00:07:56 0:15:18 15 (10/2/3) 00:01:01 Team I 00:06:18 0:12:52 8 (6/1/1) 00:01:37 Team J 00:05:46 0:11:41 12 (9/2/1) 00:00:58 Team K 00:06:17 0:14:09 9 (7/1/1) 00:01:34 TOTAL 01:15:30 (M=00:06:52; SD=00:01:05) 2:52:59 (M=00:15:44; SD=00:04:22) 147 (M=13.36; SD=3.57) (M=00:01:14; 
 SD=00:00:20) Classroom Critique Acts 147
 (M=13.36; SD=3.57) M = 1 minute, 14 seconds Google Docs Critique Acts 224
 (M=20.36; SD=6.62) 152.38% increase in 
 critique capacity
  29. 29. What was the nature of critique content that the advanced students generated? 3
  30. 30. GD CRITIQUE TURNS M=37.59 words (SD=34.65) 135 design critiques (M=12.27; SD=5.56) 98 presentation critiques (M=8.91; SD=4.12)
  31. 31. Team C: “I think the “presentation preview” slide at the beginning was brilliant. You could have very easily leveraged this to better include your research early on. Make your research the equivalent of the “turn off your cell phones” announcement. Whatever it may be, but briefly explaining that “the tech you are about to see is fantastical, but be assured - it is feasible.” (TM: super awesome wicked great suggestion)” Team I: “Your presentation style (pace, confidence, etc.) is night and day between the last time I saw you present. Nice job. (+1 UK, +1XE +1 DK)” Team H: “Be careful about telling your stakeholders “I guess you guys aren’t aware of this…” You might have a boss who gets upset at their assumed ignorance (+1 TQ, you don’t want to make them feel dumb or inadequate, you need buy in!)” PRESENTATION CRITIQUE
  32. 32. Team C: "ok, textures? I am so confused, how on earth is this happening? Is this 3d glasses? I may not have heard how this happens, but is this sort of like Disney that you have “robots” and existing props that add this texture that you are talking about? ok, you talked about the textured screens at the end. I would have liked to hear this as you go through your story because it completely distracted me..." Team F: “I’m concerned that your design is a bit magical. Your scenario is kind of perfect; stressful person puts on magical jacket and suddenly everything is better! Stress and anxiety doesn’t always arise, but can arise often from actual things going on in people’s life. Your jacket doesn’t make less things due, or make people have less work, or make the trip suddenly over. Just because you can pat people on the back doesn’t mean you’re going to make them less stressed. (BX: I think of [other professor] and her issues with turbulence. She needs more than a fake back pat)” Team I: “The in-store has been handled decently enough, but my concerns are with the system. How does this fit into my ecosystem? The stores? Food Companies? You say it is out of the scope, but it is something that needs addressing as you are adding a brand new infrastructure into stores.” DESIGN CRITIQUE
  33. 33. NEGOTIATION THROUGH 
 BACKCHANNELING “unfortunately I don't think it was stellar because since it was backwards, the whole time I kept thinking NO FUCKING WAY. WTF ARE YOU GUYS DOING ARE OYU ON CRACK?” “The message should be about the presentation order. and i think the issues with scalability or how it doesnt quite fit the body data stuff.”
  34. 34. DISCUSSION
  35. 35. DISCUSSION mentors demonstrated an ability to manage anonymity and ownership effectively in digitally mediated spaces an expansion of critique allows for increased interaction and opportunity for crosstalk, even when the physical space does not allow for it multimodal critique encouraged socialization around design topics and negotiation of meaning—mirroring the discursive quality of physically-mediated critique mentors built skills as assessors and design professionals, clarifying their concerns in order to 
 reach consensus
  36. 36. colingray.me THANK YOU

×