Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-13T09:41:53.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2010

Gabriela Goldschmidt ,
Hagay Hochman  and
Itay Dafni
Gabriela Goldschmidt
Affiliation:
Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Hagay Hochman
Affiliation:
Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Itay Dafni
Affiliation:
Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion–Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The design studio has been, and will probably continue to be, the cornerstone of design education. Its major feature is the one-on-one desk critique (crit), in which student and teacher discuss the student's work in progress on a regular and frequent basis. The studio is a learning by doing environment, and the crit is the setting in which students acquire design skills and knowledge, under the guidance of the teacher. Design teachers are usually practitioners who receive no pedagogical training, and the effectiveness of their teaching depends on experience, awareness, and talent. Here we offer a detailed qualitative and quantitative representation of the crit through analyses of three case studies, which were collected in second-year architectural studios. We use two types of protocol analysis methods: coding of verbalizations and linkography, which looks at links among verbalizations. We show the diversity in teachers' performance and point to common trends. We propose that analyses of this kind may serve as a major feedback instrument in the framework of a badly needed pedagogical basis for design education.

Keywords

Crit (Critique)Critical VerbalizationsDesign StudioLinkographVerbalization

Information

Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Design Pedagogy: Representations and Processes , August 2010 , pp. 285 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anthony, K.H. (1991). Design Juries on Trial. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Argiris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
Austerlitz, N. (Ed.). (2008). Unspoken Interactions: Exploring the Unspoken Dimension of Learning and Teaching in Creative Subjects. Gateshead: Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design.Google Scholar
Austerlitz, N., & Aravot, I. (2007). Emotions of design students: a new perspective for the design studio. In Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future (Salama, A., & Wilkinson, N., Eds.), pp. 233–246. London: Urban International Press.Google Scholar
Cai, H., Do, E.Y.-L., & Zimring, C.M. (2010). Extended linkography and distance graph in design evaluation: an empirical study of the dual effect of inspiration sources in creative design. Design Studies 31 (2), 146–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinham, S.M. (1987 a). Architectural education: the possibilities for research on teaching architecture. Architectural Record April, 41–43.Google Scholar
Dinham, S.M. (1987 b). An ongoing qualitative study of architecture studio teaching: analyzing teacher–student exchanges. Proc. ASHE Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, November 21–24.Google Scholar
Doidge, C., Sara, R., & Parnell, R. (Eds.). (2000). The Crit: An Architecture Student's Handbook. Oxford: Architectural Press (Elsevier).Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1995). The designer as a team of one. Design Studies 16 (2), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2002). “One-on-One”: a pedagogic base for design instruction in the studio. Proc. Common Ground, Design Research Society Int. Conf., pp. 430–437 [CD]. Stoke-on-Trent: Staffordshire University Press.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2003). Cognitive economy in design reasoning. In Human Behaviour in Design (Lindemann, U., Ed.), pp. 53–62. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas? Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies 26 (6), 593–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heylighen, A., Bouwen, J.E., & Neuckermans, H. (1999). Walking on a thin line—between passive knowledge and active knowing of components and concepts in architectural design. Design Studies 20 (2), 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kan, J.W.T., & Gero, J.S. (2008). Acquiring information from linkography in protocol studies of designing. Design Studies 29 (4), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry. New York: Intext.Google Scholar
Kvan, T., & Gao, S. (2006). A comparative study of problem framing in multiple settings. Proc. Design Computing and Cognition'06 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 245–263. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (Eds.). (2000). Changing Architectural Education. London: Spon Press.Google Scholar
Ochsner, J.K. (2000). Behind the mask: a psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education 53 (4), 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quayle, M. (1985). Ideabook for Teaching Design. Mesa, AZ: PDA Publisher Corporation.Google Scholar
Sachs, A. (1999). “Stuckness” in the design studio. Design Studies 20 (2), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salama, A. (1995). New trends in architectural education: designing the design studio. PhD Thesis. Raleigh, NC: Tailored Text & Unlimited Potential Publishing.Google Scholar
Salama, A.M., & Wilkinson, N. (Eds.). (2007). Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future. Gateshead: Urban International Press.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1985). The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potentials. London: RIBA.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
Uluoğlu, B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies 21 (1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Lugt, R. (2001). Sketching in design idea generation meetings. PhD Thesis. Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
van der Lugt, R. (2003). Relating the quality of the idea generation process to the quality of the resulting design ideas. Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Engineering Design (Folkeson, A., Gralén, K., Norell, M., & Sellgren, U., Eds.) [CD]. Stockholm: Design Society.Google Scholar
Wendler, V.W., & Rogers, J.S. (1995). The design life space: verbal communication in the architectural design studio. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 12 (4), 319–335.Google Scholar
Wilkin, M. (2000). Reviewing the review. In Changing Architectural Education (Nicol, D., & Pilling, S., Eds.), pp. 100–107. London: Spon Press.Google Scholar