Document Type

Article

Rights

This item is available under a Creative Commons License for non-commercial use only

Publication Details

"The international journal of learning" 17(10), 137-154.

Abstract

This paper provides a student perspective on the variety of forms of design critique available to educators. In architecture and landscape architecture, the design jury remains the dominant format for providing feedback to students. In recent years this format has come under scrutiny and its effectiveness called into question. However, little research has been done into the variety of alternative or supplemental formats available to educators. This paper explores an array of techniques that the authors have employed in design studio courses (which include techniques suggested by students in Webster’s 2007 article in the Journal of Architectural Education). These include written and verbal forms of feedback, peer and self evaluations, feedback provided during the design process and variations in the jury format. The benefits and limitations of each of the techniques are explored through presentation of the results of two web-based surveys of students. The student surveys were conducted department-wide at the Mississippi State University Department of Landscape Architecture and the Hampton University Department of Architecture. The surveys consisted of a series of Likert-scaled and open ended questions focused on the students’ perceptions of the educational and motivational value of each technique. Students were also asked to rank the various techniques in order of preference and explain why they found the techniques helpful or not. Responses demonstrated a clear preference for one-on-one forms of evaluation. This result has raised a number of questions relative to students’ preparation for professional practice and the role of educators in fostering student independence. This paper explores these issues as well as the benefits and limitations of each technique in an effort to assist educators in making informed use of the various assessment formats.

DOI

10.21427/D7BW4S