2022
Gray, Colin M
Critical Pedagogy and the Pluriversal Design Studio Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of the Design Research Society, Design Research Society, 2022.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Design Knowledge, Ethics and Values
@inproceedings{Gray2022-kn,
title = {Critical Pedagogy and the Pluriversal Design Studio},
author = {Colin M Gray},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.238
https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022_Gray_DRS_CriticalPedagogyPluriversalDesignStudio.pdf},
doi = {10.21606/drs.2022.238},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-06-01},
urldate = {2022-06-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Design Research Society},
publisher = {Design Research Society},
abstract = {Studio learning is central to the teaching of design. However,
the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, alongside emerging and
historic critiques of studio pedagogy, creates a space for
critical engagement with the present and potential futures of
design education in studio. In this paper, I outline historic
critiques of studio pedagogy, drawing primarily from critical
pedagogy literature to frame issues relating to disempowerment,
student agency, and monolithic representations of the student
role and student development. I build upon this critical
foundation to re-imagine studio practices as pluriversal,
recognizing the challenges and opportunities of bridging
epistemological and ontological differences and facilitating the
potential for pluralism in design curricula, our student
experiences, and the future of design professions.},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Design Knowledge, Ethics and Values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Studio learning is central to the teaching of design. However,
the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, alongside emerging and
historic critiques of studio pedagogy, creates a space for
critical engagement with the present and potential futures of
design education in studio. In this paper, I outline historic
critiques of studio pedagogy, drawing primarily from critical
pedagogy literature to frame issues relating to disempowerment,
student agency, and monolithic representations of the student
role and student development. I build upon this critical
foundation to re-imagine studio practices as pluriversal,
recognizing the challenges and opportunities of bridging
epistemological and ontological differences and facilitating the
potential for pluralism in design curricula, our student
experiences, and the future of design professions.
the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, alongside emerging and
historic critiques of studio pedagogy, creates a space for
critical engagement with the present and potential futures of
design education in studio. In this paper, I outline historic
critiques of studio pedagogy, drawing primarily from critical
pedagogy literature to frame issues relating to disempowerment,
student agency, and monolithic representations of the student
role and student development. I build upon this critical
foundation to re-imagine studio practices as pluriversal,
recognizing the challenges and opportunities of bridging
epistemological and ontological differences and facilitating the
potential for pluralism in design curricula, our student
experiences, and the future of design professions.
2021
Gray, Colin M
"Scaling Up" and Adapting to Crisis: Shifting a Residential UX Studio Program Online Journal Article
In: Design and Technology Education, 2021.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, HCI Education, Studio Pedagogy
@article{Gray2021-oq,
title = {"Scaling Up" and Adapting to Crisis: Shifting a Residential UX Studio Program Online},
author = {Colin M Gray},
url = {https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2969},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-01},
urldate = {2021-11-01},
journal = {Design and Technology Education},
abstract = {Our undergraduate UX program at Purdue University launched in 2016 as one of the first UX-focused undergraduate degree programs in the United States, intentionally designed to support the unique characteristics of a residential, research-intensive, land-grant institution. We designed multiple overlapping studio experiences that formed multiple connections among cohorts, supporting mentorship, cognitive apprenticeship, the construction of social bonds, and reflection on one’s own development as a designer. Our program was experiencing quick growth, with our cohort size growing from 20 students in 2016 to 50 students in 2021. With the onset of pandemic restrictions, the challenges of “scaling up” and the challenges of building a virtual studio pedagogy thus met. Our “hidden curriculum” of peer feedback and tacit learning, critique as a means of socialization and feedback, emancipation of the self, and allowance for identity formation pointed towards studio properties that were central to our pedagogy and needed to be reformulated or rethought. I describe the resulting “dimensions of crisis” that impacted our pedagogy and practice, the new supports for studio learning practices that we designed, and how these changes may lead to lasting changes to our residential program once the restrictions of the pandemic subside.},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, HCI Education, Studio Pedagogy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Our undergraduate UX program at Purdue University launched in 2016 as one of the first UX-focused undergraduate degree programs in the United States, intentionally designed to support the unique characteristics of a residential, research-intensive, land-grant institution. We designed multiple overlapping studio experiences that formed multiple connections among cohorts, supporting mentorship, cognitive apprenticeship, the construction of social bonds, and reflection on one’s own development as a designer. Our program was experiencing quick growth, with our cohort size growing from 20 students in 2016 to 50 students in 2021. With the onset of pandemic restrictions, the challenges of “scaling up” and the challenges of building a virtual studio pedagogy thus met. Our “hidden curriculum” of peer feedback and tacit learning, critique as a means of socialization and feedback, emancipation of the self, and allowance for identity formation pointed towards studio properties that were central to our pedagogy and needed to be reformulated or rethought. I describe the resulting “dimensions of crisis” that impacted our pedagogy and practice, the new supports for studio learning practices that we designed, and how these changes may lead to lasting changes to our residential program once the restrictions of the pandemic subside.
2020
Gray, Colin M; Parsons, Paul; Toombs, Austin L
Building a Holistic Design Identity Through Integrated Studio Education Book Chapter
In: Hokanson, Brad; Clinton, Gregory; Tawfik, Andrew; Grincewicz, Amy; Schmidt, Matthew (Ed.): Educational Technology Beyond Content - A New Focus for Learning, pp. 43-55, Springer, 2020.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, HCI Education, Instructional Design, Studio Pedagogy, Transdisciplinary Education
@inbook{Gray2020e,
title = {Building a Holistic Design Identity Through Integrated Studio Education},
author = {Colin M Gray and Paul Parsons and Austin L Toombs},
editor = {Brad Hokanson and Gregory Clinton and Andrew Tawfik and Amy Grincewicz and Matthew Schmidt},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37254-5_4},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-37254-5_4},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-01},
urldate = {2020-04-01},
booktitle = {Educational Technology Beyond Content - A New Focus for Learning},
pages = {43-55},
publisher = {Springer},
abstract = {Design education has quickly evolved from product- to interaction-focused outcomes. As the technical skills needed for success become increasingly unstable, a holistic means of instruction is needed to prepare students for the realities of practice. In this chapter, we describe the creation of a novel undergraduate user experience (UX) design program that focuses on learning strands that weave throughout a studio-based program. Instead of relying upon content-delineated coursework, where strands of competence necessary for practice are often siloed, the integrated studio encourages students to build a flexible design identity, relating multiple strands of content to one another in a systematic way throughout their program.},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, HCI Education, Instructional Design, Studio Pedagogy, Transdisciplinary Education},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Design education has quickly evolved from product- to interaction-focused outcomes. As the technical skills needed for success become increasingly unstable, a holistic means of instruction is needed to prepare students for the realities of practice. In this chapter, we describe the creation of a novel undergraduate user experience (UX) design program that focuses on learning strands that weave throughout a studio-based program. Instead of relying upon content-delineated coursework, where strands of competence necessary for practice are often siloed, the integrated studio encourages students to build a flexible design identity, relating multiple strands of content to one another in a systematic way throughout their program.
Boling, Elizabeth; Gray, Colin M; Smith, Kennon M
Educating for design character in higher education: Challenges in studio pedagogy Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of the Design Research Society, Design Research Society, Brisbane, Australia, 2020.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Identity, Studio Pedagogy
@inproceedings{Boling2020-ci,
title = {Educating for design character in higher education: Challenges in studio pedagogy},
author = {Elizabeth Boling and Colin M Gray and Kennon M Smith},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020_BolingGraySmith_DRS_DesignCharacter.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.120},
doi = {10.21606/drs.2020.120},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Design Research Society},
publisher = {Design Research Society},
address = {Brisbane, Australia},
abstract = {Some particular challenges in studio pedagogy arise from
teaching for design character versus focusing solely on skills,
knowledge or the cognitive processes of our students. In this
paper, three authors with extensive combined experience in
studio learning, teaching, and scholarship address these
challenges via reflection on our own experiences of research and
teaching and in-depth discussion with each other. We adopt a
co/autoethnographic approach (Coia & Taylor, 2009), identifying
a range of challenges we have faced ourselves across three
established and emergent design disciplines. These challenges
are grouped in relationship to students, to curriculum, to our
colleagues, and to ourselves. In our experience these challenges
affect instructors differently than---and in addition to---those
presented by traditional studio, and we present opportunities to
build on these articulated challenges to further studio
pedagogy.},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Identity, Studio Pedagogy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
Some particular challenges in studio pedagogy arise from
teaching for design character versus focusing solely on skills,
knowledge or the cognitive processes of our students. In this
paper, three authors with extensive combined experience in
studio learning, teaching, and scholarship address these
challenges via reflection on our own experiences of research and
teaching and in-depth discussion with each other. We adopt a
co/autoethnographic approach (Coia & Taylor, 2009), identifying
a range of challenges we have faced ourselves across three
established and emergent design disciplines. These challenges
are grouped in relationship to students, to curriculum, to our
colleagues, and to ourselves. In our experience these challenges
affect instructors differently than---and in addition to---those
presented by traditional studio, and we present opportunities to
build on these articulated challenges to further studio
pedagogy.
teaching for design character versus focusing solely on skills,
knowledge or the cognitive processes of our students. In this
paper, three authors with extensive combined experience in
studio learning, teaching, and scholarship address these
challenges via reflection on our own experiences of research and
teaching and in-depth discussion with each other. We adopt a
co/autoethnographic approach (Coia & Taylor, 2009), identifying
a range of challenges we have faced ourselves across three
established and emergent design disciplines. These challenges
are grouped in relationship to students, to curriculum, to our
colleagues, and to ourselves. In our experience these challenges
affect instructors differently than---and in addition to---those
presented by traditional studio, and we present opportunities to
build on these articulated challenges to further studio
pedagogy.
2018
Gray, Colin M; Fernandez, Todd M
When World(view)s Collide: Contested Epistemologies and Ontologies in Transdisciplinary Education Journal Article
In: International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 574–589, 2018, ISSN: 0949-149X.
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Transdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinary Education
@article{Gray2018-wz,
title = {When World(view)s Collide: Contested Epistemologies and Ontologies in Transdisciplinary Education},
author = {Colin M Gray and Todd M Fernandez},
issn = {0949-149X},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-01-01},
journal = {International Journal of Engineering Education},
volume = {34},
number = {2},
pages = {574--589},
abstract = {In conjunction with the drive towards human-centered design in
engineering education, questions arise regarding how students
build and engage a socially-aware engineering identity, and how
this identity points towards beliefs about the nature of reality.
In this paper, we describe how students in a transdisciplinary
undergraduate program struggle to engage with ontological and
epistemological perspectives that draw on this social turn,
particularly in relation to human-centered engineering approaches
and sociotechnical complexity. We use a critical qualitative
meaning reconstruction approach to deeply analyze the
meaning-making assumptions of the students. Our findings reveal
characteristic barriers in engaging with other subjectivities,
and related epistemological and ontological claims implicit in
these subjectivities. Specifically, we show that students'
observable behaviors often mask misalignments between their
epistemic beliefs and the designerly practices they
employ---failing to account for the multiple subjective realities
that the tools are designed to uncover. For these students, that
misalignment makes the learning or practice of designerly
behaviors less formative of a designerly identity. We conclude
with implications for encouraging socially-aware identity
formation in engineering education.},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Transdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinary Education},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In conjunction with the drive towards human-centered design in
engineering education, questions arise regarding how students
build and engage a socially-aware engineering identity, and how
this identity points towards beliefs about the nature of reality.
In this paper, we describe how students in a transdisciplinary
undergraduate program struggle to engage with ontological and
epistemological perspectives that draw on this social turn,
particularly in relation to human-centered engineering approaches
and sociotechnical complexity. We use a critical qualitative
meaning reconstruction approach to deeply analyze the
meaning-making assumptions of the students. Our findings reveal
characteristic barriers in engaging with other subjectivities,
and related epistemological and ontological claims implicit in
these subjectivities. Specifically, we show that students'
observable behaviors often mask misalignments between their
epistemic beliefs and the designerly practices they
employ---failing to account for the multiple subjective realities
that the tools are designed to uncover. For these students, that
misalignment makes the learning or practice of designerly
behaviors less formative of a designerly identity. We conclude
with implications for encouraging socially-aware identity
formation in engineering education.
engineering education, questions arise regarding how students
build and engage a socially-aware engineering identity, and how
this identity points towards beliefs about the nature of reality.
In this paper, we describe how students in a transdisciplinary
undergraduate program struggle to engage with ontological and
epistemological perspectives that draw on this social turn,
particularly in relation to human-centered engineering approaches
and sociotechnical complexity. We use a critical qualitative
meaning reconstruction approach to deeply analyze the
meaning-making assumptions of the students. Our findings reveal
characteristic barriers in engaging with other subjectivities,
and related epistemological and ontological claims implicit in
these subjectivities. Specifically, we show that students'
observable behaviors often mask misalignments between their
epistemic beliefs and the designerly practices they
employ---failing to account for the multiple subjective realities
that the tools are designed to uncover. For these students, that
misalignment makes the learning or practice of designerly
behaviors less formative of a designerly identity. We conclude
with implications for encouraging socially-aware identity
formation in engineering education.
2017
Gray, Colin M; Fernandez, Todd M
Developing a Socially-Aware Engineering Identity Through Transdisciplinary Learning Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of the Mudd Design Workshop X: Design and the Future of the Engineer of 2020, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA, 2017.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Design Knowledge, Transdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinary Education
@inproceedings{Gray2017-mi,
title = {Developing a Socially-Aware Engineering Identity Through Transdisciplinary Learning},
author = {Colin M Gray and Todd M Fernandez},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2017_GrayFernandez_MUDD_SociallyAwareEngineeringIdentity.pdf},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Mudd Design Workshop X: Design and the Future of the Engineer of 2020},
publisher = {Harvey Mudd College},
address = {Claremont, CA},
abstract = {In conjunction with the drive towards human-centered design in engineering education, questions arise regarding how students build and engage a socially-aware engineering identity. In this paper, we describe how students in a transdisciplinary undergraduate program struggle to engage with ontological and epistemological perspectives that draw on that social turn, particularly in relation to human-centered engineering approaches and sociotechnical complexity. We use a critical qualitative meaning reconstruction approach to deeply analyze the meaning-making assumptions of these students to reveal characteristic barriers in engaging with other subjectivities, and related epistemological and ontological claims implicit in these subjectivities. We conclude with implications for encouraging socially-aware identity formation in engineering education.},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Design Knowledge, Transdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinary Education},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
In conjunction with the drive towards human-centered design in engineering education, questions arise regarding how students build and engage a socially-aware engineering identity. In this paper, we describe how students in a transdisciplinary undergraduate program struggle to engage with ontological and epistemological perspectives that draw on that social turn, particularly in relation to human-centered engineering approaches and sociotechnical complexity. We use a critical qualitative meaning reconstruction approach to deeply analyze the meaning-making assumptions of these students to reveal characteristic barriers in engaging with other subjectivities, and related epistemological and ontological claims implicit in these subjectivities. We conclude with implications for encouraging socially-aware identity formation in engineering education.
2016
Gray, Colin M; Boling, Elizabeth
Inscribing ethics and values in designs for learning: a problematic Journal Article
In: Educational technology research and development: ETR & D, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 969–1001, 2016, ISSN: 1042-1629, 1556-6501.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Ethics and Values
@article{Gray2016-mp,
title = {Inscribing ethics and values in designs for learning: a problematic},
author = {Colin M Gray and Elizabeth Boling},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9478-x},
doi = {10.1007/s11423-016-9478-x},
issn = {1042-1629, 1556-6501},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-10-01},
journal = {Educational technology research and development: ETR & D},
volume = {64},
number = {5},
pages = {969--1001},
publisher = {Springer},
abstract = {The exponential growth in technological capability has resulted
in increased interest on the short- and long-term effects of
designed artifacts, leading to a focus in many design fields on
the ethics and values that are inscribed in the designs we
create. While ethical awareness is a key concern in many
engineering, technology, and design disciplines---even an
accreditation requirement in many fields---instructional design
and technology (IDT) has not historically focused their view of
practice on ethics, instead relying on a more scientistic view
of practice which artificially limits the designer's interaction
with the surrounding society through the artifacts and
experiences they design. In this paper, we argue for a
heightened view of designer responsibility and design process in
an ethical framing, drawing on methods and theoretical
frameworks of ethical responsibility from the broader design
community. We then demonstrate the frequency of ethical concerns
that emerge in a content analysis of design cases that document
authentic instructional design practice. We conclude with two
paths forward to improve instructional design education and
research regarding the nature of practice, advocating for
increased documentation of design precedent to generatively
complicate our notions of the design process, and for the
creation and use of critical designs to foreground ethical and
value-related concerns in IDT research and practice.},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Ethics and Values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The exponential growth in technological capability has resulted
in increased interest on the short- and long-term effects of
designed artifacts, leading to a focus in many design fields on
the ethics and values that are inscribed in the designs we
create. While ethical awareness is a key concern in many
engineering, technology, and design disciplines---even an
accreditation requirement in many fields---instructional design
and technology (IDT) has not historically focused their view of
practice on ethics, instead relying on a more scientistic view
of practice which artificially limits the designer's interaction
with the surrounding society through the artifacts and
experiences they design. In this paper, we argue for a
heightened view of designer responsibility and design process in
an ethical framing, drawing on methods and theoretical
frameworks of ethical responsibility from the broader design
community. We then demonstrate the frequency of ethical concerns
that emerge in a content analysis of design cases that document
authentic instructional design practice. We conclude with two
paths forward to improve instructional design education and
research regarding the nature of practice, advocating for
increased documentation of design precedent to generatively
complicate our notions of the design process, and for the
creation and use of critical designs to foreground ethical and
value-related concerns in IDT research and practice.
in increased interest on the short- and long-term effects of
designed artifacts, leading to a focus in many design fields on
the ethics and values that are inscribed in the designs we
create. While ethical awareness is a key concern in many
engineering, technology, and design disciplines---even an
accreditation requirement in many fields---instructional design
and technology (IDT) has not historically focused their view of
practice on ethics, instead relying on a more scientistic view
of practice which artificially limits the designer's interaction
with the surrounding society through the artifacts and
experiences they design. In this paper, we argue for a
heightened view of designer responsibility and design process in
an ethical framing, drawing on methods and theoretical
frameworks of ethical responsibility from the broader design
community. We then demonstrate the frequency of ethical concerns
that emerge in a content analysis of design cases that document
authentic instructional design practice. We conclude with two
paths forward to improve instructional design education and
research regarding the nature of practice, advocating for
increased documentation of design precedent to generatively
complicate our notions of the design process, and for the
creation and use of critical designs to foreground ethical and
value-related concerns in IDT research and practice.
Gray, Colin M; Smith, Kennon M
Critical Views of Studio Book Section
In: Boling, Elizabeth; Schwier, Richard A; Gray, Colin M; Smith, Kennon M; Campbell, Katy (Ed.): Studio Teaching in Higher Education: Selected Design Cases, pp. 260–270, Routledge, New York, NY, 2016.
BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Studio Pedagogy
@incollection{Gray2016-kv,
title = {Critical Views of Studio},
author = {Colin M Gray and Kennon M Smith},
editor = {Elizabeth Boling and Richard A Schwier and Colin M Gray and Kennon M Smith and Katy Campbell},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-01-01},
booktitle = {Studio Teaching in Higher Education: Selected Design Cases},
pages = {260--270},
publisher = {Routledge},
address = {New York, NY},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Studio Pedagogy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
2015
Gray, Colin M; Howard, Craig D
"Why are they not responding to critique?": A student-centered construction of the crit Proceedings Article
In: LearnxDesign: The 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers and PreK-16 Design Educators, pp. 1680-1700, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Critique, Design Education, HCI Education
@inproceedings{Gray2015k,
title = {"Why are they not responding to critique?": A student-centered construction of the crit},
author = {Colin M Gray and Craig D Howard},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2015_GrayHoward_LxD_MultimodalCritique.pdf},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-06-01},
urldate = {2015-06-01},
booktitle = {LearnxDesign: The 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers and PreK-16 Design Educators},
pages = {1680-1700},
publisher = {School of the Art Institute of Chicago},
address = {Chicago, IL},
abstract = {The crit is a dominant public instructional event, and has often been studied through the lens of institutional power, through the perspective of the instructor. In this study, we analyze the classroom presentations and critiques of three teams in a design-focused human-computer interaction graduate program, calling attention to other modes of student-generated critique that occur alongside the traditional formal conversation. These critiques comprise, in parallel: 1) a public oral critique led by the instructor alongside student questions; 2) a critique document collaboratively authored in Google Docs by experienced students; and 3) backchannel chat by experienced students via Google Doc messaging. Through the complex interactions between these modes of parallel critique, multiple levels of interaction and conversational behavior emerge, with experienced students shaping each type of feedback and use of technological tools. We present and analyze cases drawn from the teams through computer-mediated communication and critical pedagogy perspectives to characterize these interactions, documenting how experienced students take on different typifications—or understandings of role expectations within the conversation—which mediate the instructional qualities of the critique. We introduce three typifications: the relaxed professional in backchannel chat, poised professional in the Google Doc, and instructional tutor in the physical classroom space.},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Critique, Design Education, HCI Education},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
The crit is a dominant public instructional event, and has often been studied through the lens of institutional power, through the perspective of the instructor. In this study, we analyze the classroom presentations and critiques of three teams in a design-focused human-computer interaction graduate program, calling attention to other modes of student-generated critique that occur alongside the traditional formal conversation. These critiques comprise, in parallel: 1) a public oral critique led by the instructor alongside student questions; 2) a critique document collaboratively authored in Google Docs by experienced students; and 3) backchannel chat by experienced students via Google Doc messaging. Through the complex interactions between these modes of parallel critique, multiple levels of interaction and conversational behavior emerge, with experienced students shaping each type of feedback and use of technological tools. We present and analyze cases drawn from the teams through computer-mediated communication and critical pedagogy perspectives to characterize these interactions, documenting how experienced students take on different typifications—or understandings of role expectations within the conversation—which mediate the instructional qualities of the critique. We introduce three typifications: the relaxed professional in backchannel chat, poised professional in the Google Doc, and instructional tutor in the physical classroom space.
Gray, Colin M
Critiquing the Role of the Learner and Context in Aesthetic Learning Experiences Book Chapter
In: The Design of Learning Experience, pp. 199–213, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Instructional Design, Studio Pedagogy
@inbook{Gray2015-hu,
title = {Critiquing the Role of the Learner and Context in Aesthetic Learning Experiences},
author = {Colin M Gray},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2015_Gray_LearningExperiences_CritiquingLearnerandContext.pdf
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_14},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_14},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-01-01},
booktitle = {The Design of Learning Experience},
pages = {199--213},
publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
address = {Cham},
abstract = {I critique the role of learners and context to more fully explore the latent conceptions and performance of aesthetic learning experiences in instructional design and technology. This critique is intended to allow for a fuller interrogation of how individual learners apprehend designed learning experiences, heightening the role of the instructional designer in envisioning such experiences. Using a 1-year ethnography of a graduate human–computer interaction program to document the felt student experience, I highlight the importance of understanding how learners construct their own experiences during the learning process through the roles they take on and the informal pedagogical experiences they create. I identify additional areas of research that are needed to expand our notions of designing for experience, informing both theory construction and practice.},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Design Education, Instructional Design, Studio Pedagogy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
I critique the role of learners and context to more fully explore the latent conceptions and performance of aesthetic learning experiences in instructional design and technology. This critique is intended to allow for a fuller interrogation of how individual learners apprehend designed learning experiences, heightening the role of the instructional designer in envisioning such experiences. Using a 1-year ethnography of a graduate human–computer interaction program to document the felt student experience, I highlight the importance of understanding how learners construct their own experiences during the learning process through the roles they take on and the informal pedagogical experiences they create. I identify additional areas of research that are needed to expand our notions of designing for experience, informing both theory construction and practice.
2013
Gray, Colin M
Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio Journal Article
In: Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 195–209, 2013, ISSN: 1474-273X.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critical Pedagogy, Critique, Design Education, HCI Education, Studio Pedagogy
@article{Gray2013-aw,
title = {Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio},
author = {Colin M Gray},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2013_Gray_ADCHE_InformalPeerCritique.pdf
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/adche/2013/00000012/00000002/art00005},
doi = {10.1386/adch.12.2.195_1},
issn = {1474-273X},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-12-01},
urldate = {2013-12-01},
journal = {Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education},
volume = {12},
number = {2},
pages = {195--209},
publisher = {Intellect},
abstract = {Critique is a central feature of design education, serving as both a structural mecha- nism to provide regular feedback, and as a high stakes assessment tool. However, this study addresses informal peer critique as an extension of this existing form, engaging students in communication outside of the formal pedagogy. The purpose of this study is to gain a greater understanding of the role of informal critique in exter- nalizing design thinking and judgment, as analysed through Bourdieu’s habitus. Structures surrounding critique, including the role of informal vs formal spaces, objectivity vs subjectivity of critique, and differences between professor and peer feedback are addressed. Beliefs about critique are analysed as critical elements of an evolving habitus, supported by or developed in response to the culture inscribed by the formal pedagogy. Informal critique reveals tacit design thinking and concep- tions of design, and outlines the co-construction of habitus between students and the formal pedagogy.},
keywords = {Critical Pedagogy, Critique, Design Education, HCI Education, Studio Pedagogy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Critique is a central feature of design education, serving as both a structural mecha- nism to provide regular feedback, and as a high stakes assessment tool. However, this study addresses informal peer critique as an extension of this existing form, engaging students in communication outside of the formal pedagogy. The purpose of this study is to gain a greater understanding of the role of informal critique in exter- nalizing design thinking and judgment, as analysed through Bourdieu’s habitus. Structures surrounding critique, including the role of informal vs formal spaces, objectivity vs subjectivity of critique, and differences between professor and peer feedback are addressed. Beliefs about critique are analysed as critical elements of an evolving habitus, supported by or developed in response to the culture inscribed by the formal pedagogy. Informal critique reveals tacit design thinking and concep- tions of design, and outlines the co-construction of habitus between students and the formal pedagogy.