Three studio critiquing cultures: Fun follows function or function follows fun?

For the longest time, design was an activity with no distinction among disciplines. Over time, separate design disciplines had formed their own cultures and their own educational practices. In this paper, we use data from a limited set of design reviews along with a literature survey to conduct a comparative analysis of contemporary reviewing and critiquing cultures in architecture, industrial design and mechanical engineering. We point out differences and communalities, and conclude with a list of the lessons the three disciplines can learn from one another regarding reviewing in the classroom. We dwell especially on one issue that currently differentiates the three cultures: the stress they lay on excitement and fun. We believe that a world in which products of all sorts – from buildings through machines to consumer products – are fun, is a better world to live in.

[1]  John S. Gero,et al.  Comparing the Design Cognition of Concept Design Reviews of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering Designers , 2014 .

[2]  Wayne Attoe,et al.  Excellent studio teaching in architecture , 1991 .

[3]  Andrew N. Hrymak,et al.  Developing Problem Solving Skills: The McMaster Problem Solving Program , 1997 .

[4]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Dimensions of Creative Evaluation: Distinct Design and Reasoning Strategies for Aesthetic, Functional and Originality Judgments , 2016 .

[5]  Rebecca Brent,et al.  Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria , 2003 .

[6]  Ronald L. Miller,et al.  Defining the outcomes: a framework for EC-2000 , 2000, IEEE Trans. Educ..

[7]  Stefani Ledewitz,et al.  Models of Design in Studio Teaching , 1985 .

[8]  Robin Adams,et al.  Making Design Pedagogical Content Knowledge Visible within Design Reviews , 2014 .

[9]  Andy Dong,et al.  Legitimating design: a sociology of knowledge account of the field , 2009 .

[10]  Carol B. Brandt,et al.  The “right kind of telling”: knowledge building in the academic design studio , 2012 .

[11]  Jean Paul Carlhian.  The Ecole Des Beaux-Arts: Modes and Manners , 1979 .

[12]  Peter Lloyd,et al.  ‘Wait, wait, Dan, your turn’: Authority and Assessment in the Design Critique , 2014 .

[13]  H. Barrows.  Problem‐based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview , 1996 .

[14]  Sarah A. Douglas,et al.  A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment , 2013 .

[15]  Moura Quayle.  Ideabook for Teaching Design , 1985 .

[16]  J. K. Ochsner,et al.  Behind the Mask: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Interaction in the Design Studio , 2000 .

[17]  Isil Ruhi Sipahioglu.  Opening the “Black-Box” of Interior Design Education: The Assessment of Basic Design Project Work , 2012 .

[18]  Ac Rianne Valkenburg,et al.  The reflective practice of design teams , 1998 .

[19]  Belkis Uluoǧlu,et al.  Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques , 2000 .

[20]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness , 1974 .

[21]  L. Christman.  Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness , 1977 .

[22]  Moti Frank,et al.  Implementing the Project-Based Learning Approach in an Academic Engineering Course , 2003 .

[23]  Ellen Yi-Luen Do,et al.  A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios , 2013 .

[24]  Nangkula Utaberta,et al.  Upgrading Education Architecture by Redefining Critique Session in Design Studio , 2013 .

[25]  D. Winnicott.  Playing and Reality , 1971 .

[26]  Janet McDonnell,et al.  Becoming a designer: Some contributions of design reviews , 2015 .

[27]  Sarah A. Douglas,et al.  Managing the Complexity of Design Problems through Studio-Based Learning. , 2011 .

[28]  Spencer P. Magleby,et al.  A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design Through Project‐Oriented Capstone Courses , 1997 .

[29]  Thomas A. Dutton,et al.  The Design Studio: An Exploration of its Traditions and Potential , 1989 .

[30]  N. Cross.  Designerly ways of knowing , 2006 .

[31]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[32]  Anthony Ward.  Ideology, culture and the design studio , 1990 .

[33]  Donald A. Sch.  The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action , 1983 .

[34]  Paul Rodgers,et al.  Using concept sketches to track design progress , 2000 .

[35]  Amy L. Housley Gaffney,et al.  Beyond Content, Deeper than Delivery: What Critique Feedback Reveals about Communication Expectations in Design Education , 2008 .

[36]  L. H. Heydenreich,et al.  Architecture in Italy, 1400 to 1600 , 1974 .

[37]  Micah Lande,et al.  Disciplinary Discourse in Design Reviews: Industrial Design and Mechanical Engineering Courses , 2014 .

[38]  T. Brown,et al.  Change by Design , 2011 .

[39]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Pedagogies of Engagement: Classroom‐Based Practices , 2005 .

[40]  Larry Leifer,et al.  Difficulties Student Engineers Face Designing the Future , 2010 .

[41]  A. Ani,et al.  Reconstructing the Idea of Critique Session in Architecture Studio , 2011 .

[42]  Douglas Neale,et al.  Assessment focus in studio: What is most prominent in architecture, art and design? , 2009 .

[43]  Kathryn H. Anthony,et al.  Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Design Studio , 1991 .

[44]  The impact of ideology on the interaction between tutors and students in the education of industrial design: A case study in Taiwan , 2006 .

[45]  V. Goel.  Sketches of thought , 1995 .

[46]  Eugene S. Ferguson,et al.  Engineering and the Mind's Eye , 1994 .

[47]  Daniel D. Frey,et al.  Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning , 2006 .

[48]  Colin Barron,et al.  Reconciling Time Reversibility and Time Irreversibility: William Rankine and the Beginning of Mechanical Engineering Education , 2009 .

[49]  R.M. Marra,et al.  Lifelong learning: a preliminary look at the literature in view of EC 2000 , 1999, FIE'99 Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.99CH37011.

[50]  Deanna Dannels.  Performing Tribal Rituals: A Genre Analysis of “Crits” in Design Studios , 2005 .

[51]  John S. Gero,et al.  Drawings and the design process , 1998 .

[52]  Rita Assoreira Almendra,et al.  Design Grammar - a pedagogical approach for observing teacher and student interaction. , 2014 .

[53]  Şeniz Çıkış,et al.  Problematization of assessment in the architectural design education: First year as a case study☆ , 2009 .

[54]  Gabriela Goldschmidt,et al.  The design studio “crit”: Teacher–student communication , 2010, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[55]  Donald A. Schön.  Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions , 1987 .