Abstract:

The purpose of this study is to investigate how studio instructors in architecture and design select their final studio review jurors. The studio is the preferred methodology for art, architecture and design. Within the studio, evaluation and assessment is done in a form of instructional critique. Students receive feedback in class from their instructor on a solution to a proposed design problem. The final presentation of the students’ design solutions is at the end of the class in a final juried event known as the “crit”. The crit is a public half- or full-day event that involves a group of invited reviewers who are assumed to be experts in the discipline. Students prepare a verbal presentation to accompany their design work (i.e., drawings, renderings, study models). They stand up before their instructor, peers and a panel of disciplinary experts to present their project. The jury then forms a collective judgment of the work.

A crit differs from a single act of criticism because it is a community event meant to help the student improve his work (Eisner, 2002). Crits have several student benefits. Students increase their understanding of: group work, presentation skills, criticism, formative assessment, and alternative points of view (Blythman, Orr & Blair, 2008). Cennamo and Brandt (2012) found crits “provided key opportunities for students to learn the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of a design discipline” (p. 854). However, negative reactions are well-documented. Students are anxious, the crit focuses more on the final product than the process, and students are generally reluctant to question the work of their peers (Doidge, Sara & Parnell, 2000). If a juror’s judgment is delivered to students in an insensitive manner, the judgment can obstruct student performance and even prevent student learning (Eisner, 2002).

The role of the crit has been questioned for decades (Anthony, 1991; Cuff, 2000); the lack of research on the subject has been lamented (Wilkin, 2000). However, no one questions the role of the juror. Ilozor (2006) believes the learning done with a jury is a problem. Not because of the evaluation method, but, “rather with the organization or structuring of the reviewers, the jurors” (p. 60). In a recent case study at a design school in the United States, studio instructors in architecture, industrial design, interior design, landscape architecture and graphic design responded to questions about how they and their colleagues determine crit jurors. They determine their jurors based on their recognized levels of education, discipline-specific knowledge, experience, reputation, and connection to the instructor and/or school. Other criteria included gender, reputation and positive outlook. Existing research on expertise aligns with these research findings, which provide insight into how a jury of experts can impact student learning in any educational setting.

Keywords:

Studio, design, education, review session.