2019
Gray, Colin M
Democratizing assessment practices through multimodal critique in the design classroom Journal Article
In: International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 929-946, 2019, ISSN: 1573-1804.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critique, Design Education, Studio Pedagogy
@article{Gray2018-pv,
title = {Democratizing assessment practices through multimodal critique in the design classroom},
author = {Colin M Gray},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9471-2},
doi = {10.1007/s10798-018-9471-2},
issn = {1573-1804},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-08-01},
journal = {International Journal of Technology and Design Education},
volume = {29},
number = {4},
pages = {929-946},
abstract = {Critique is a primary method of assessment and feedback used in design education, yet is not well understood apart from traditional instructor-led activities in physical learning spaces. In this study, we analyze a series of group critiques in a human–computer interaction learning experience, focusing on an emergent instructional design for technologically-mediated critique created by experienced students serving as peer mentors. Peer mentors designed complex interactions that supported assessment in the design classroom, including multiple technology-supported modes of critique beyond the traditional oral critique. The modes of critique, and the ways in which they intertwined, included: (1) public oral critique led by the instructor, (2) a critique document authored by experienced students in real-time using Google Docs, and (3) backchannel chat used by experienced students in Google Docs to facilitate and organize their critique. Using this model of distributed assessment, which we refer to as multimodal critique, the amount of feedback and number of interlocutors increased dramatically, facilitating participation by students and peer mentors alike. These interactions indicate instructional affordances for including many simultaneous users within an existing assessment infrastructure using readily accessible technologies, and a means of activating student development at multiple levels of expertise.},
keywords = {Critique, Design Education, Studio Pedagogy},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Critique is a primary method of assessment and feedback used in design education, yet is not well understood apart from traditional instructor-led activities in physical learning spaces. In this study, we analyze a series of group critiques in a human–computer interaction learning experience, focusing on an emergent instructional design for technologically-mediated critique created by experienced students serving as peer mentors. Peer mentors designed complex interactions that supported assessment in the design classroom, including multiple technology-supported modes of critique beyond the traditional oral critique. The modes of critique, and the ways in which they intertwined, included: (1) public oral critique led by the instructor, (2) a critique document authored by experienced students in real-time using Google Docs, and (3) backchannel chat used by experienced students in Google Docs to facilitate and organize their critique. Using this model of distributed assessment, which we refer to as multimodal critique, the amount of feedback and number of interlocutors increased dramatically, facilitating participation by students and peer mentors alike. These interactions indicate instructional affordances for including many simultaneous users within an existing assessment infrastructure using readily accessible technologies, and a means of activating student development at multiple levels of expertise.
2018
Gray, Colin M
Narrative Qualities of Design Argumentation Book Section
In: Hokanson, Brad; Clinton, Gregory; Kaminski, Karen (Ed.): Educational Technology and Narrative: Story and Instructional Design, pp. 51–64, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018, ISBN: 9783319699141.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critique, Design Education, Reflection
@incollection{Gray2018-pg,
title = {Narrative Qualities of Design Argumentation},
author = {Colin M Gray},
editor = {Brad Hokanson and Gregory Clinton and Karen Kaminski},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69914-1_5},
doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-69914-1_5},
isbn = {9783319699141},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-01-01},
booktitle = {Educational Technology and Narrative: Story and Instructional
Design},
pages = {51--64},
publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
address = {Cham},
abstract = {The narrative qualities of a design presentation and subsequent
critique comprise a design argument, distilling designers'
rationale for their design, rooted in their process. In this
paper, I analyze two consecutive design presentations from an
introductory undergraduate human-centered design studio,
documenting the argumentation structures students rely upon when
``selling'' their design. Dominant argumentation structures of
these presentation events are described and related to narrative
in a human-centered design context.},
keywords = {Critique, Design Education, Reflection},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
The narrative qualities of a design presentation and subsequent
critique comprise a design argument, distilling designers'
rationale for their design, rooted in their process. In this
paper, I analyze two consecutive design presentations from an
introductory undergraduate human-centered design studio,
documenting the argumentation structures students rely upon when
``selling'' their design. Dominant argumentation structures of
these presentation events are described and related to narrative
in a human-centered design context.
critique comprise a design argument, distilling designers'
rationale for their design, rooted in their process. In this
paper, I analyze two consecutive design presentations from an
introductory undergraduate human-centered design studio,
documenting the argumentation structures students rely upon when
``selling'' their design. Dominant argumentation structures of
these presentation events are described and related to narrative
in a human-centered design context.
2017
Kou, Yubo; Gray, Colin M
Supporting Distributed Critique through Interpretation and Sense-Making in an Online Creative Community Journal Article
In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1, no. CSCW, pp. 60, 2017, ISSN: 2573-0142.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critique, Design Knowledge, Practice-Led Research, UX Knowledge
@article{Kou2017-iq,
title = {Supporting Distributed Critique through Interpretation and Sense-Making in an Online Creative Community},
author = {Yubo Kou and Colin M Gray},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2017_KouGray_CSCW_PACMHCI_DistributedCritique.pdf
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3171581.3134695},
doi = {10.1145/3134695},
issn = {2573-0142},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-01},
journal = {Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction},
volume = {1},
number = {CSCW},
pages = {60},
publisher = {ACM},
abstract = {Critique is an important component of creative work in design education and practice, through which individuals can solicit advice and obtain feedback on their work. Face-to-face critique in offline settings such as design studios has been well-documented and theorized. However, little is known about unstructured distributed critique in online creative communities where people share and critique each other’s work, and how these practices might resemble or differ from studio critique. In this paper, we use mixed-methods to examine distributed critique practices in a UX-focused online creative community on Reddit. We found that distributed critique resembles studio critique categorically, but differs qualitatively. While studio critique often focuses on depth, distributed critique often revolved around collective sensemaking, through which creative workers engaged in iteratively interpreting, defining, and refining the artifact and their process. We discuss the relationship between distributed critique and socio-technical systems and identify implications for future research.},
keywords = {Critique, Design Knowledge, Practice-Led Research, UX Knowledge},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Critique is an important component of creative work in design education and practice, through which individuals can solicit advice and obtain feedback on their work. Face-to-face critique in offline settings such as design studios has been well-documented and theorized. However, little is known about unstructured distributed critique in online creative communities where people share and critique each other’s work, and how these practices might resemble or differ from studio critique. In this paper, we use mixed-methods to examine distributed critique practices in a UX-focused online creative community on Reddit. We found that distributed critique resembles studio critique categorically, but differs qualitatively. While studio critique often focuses on depth, distributed critique often revolved around collective sensemaking, through which creative workers engaged in iteratively interpreting, defining, and refining the artifact and their process. We discuss the relationship between distributed critique and socio-technical systems and identify implications for future research.
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
@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},
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},
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.
2014
Gray, Colin M; Howard, Craig D
Externalizing Normativity in Design Reviews: Inscribing Design Values in Designed Artifacts Proceedings Article
In: Proceedings of the Design Thinking Research Symposium, 2014.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Critique, Design Education, Ethics and Values
@inproceedings{Gray2014d,
title = {Externalizing Normativity in Design Reviews: Inscribing Design Values in Designed Artifacts},
author = {Colin M Gray and Craig D Howard},
url = {https://colingray.me/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2014_GrayHoward_DTRS_ExternalizingNormativity.pdf},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-11-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the Design Thinking Research Symposium},
abstract = {The design community has discussed issues of ethics and values for decades, but less attention has been paid to the question of how an ethical sensibility might be developed or taken on by design students. In this analysis, we explore how normative concerns emerge through the process of design reviews—where a developing designer’s normative infrastructure is engaged with the artifact they are designing. We focused on the normative concerns that were foregrounded by two undergraduate and two graduate industrial design students across a series of five design reviews, addressing the possible relationship between the emergence of normative concerns and the inscription of norms in the final designed artifact. We used several critical qualitative techniques, including sequence analysis and meaning reconstruction to locate areas where normative concerns were addressed.
Normative concerns only arose in explicit form in the earliest review sessions on the graduate level, if they were going to arise at all, and end-user research appeared to be the primary mechanism for introducing norms into the design process. Neither instructor actively engaged or foregrounded the normative infrastructure of the design students, and all of the normative concerns discussed in the four cases were brought to the conversation by students. Implications for including awareness of normative concerns as part of a student’s developing design character are considered as part of a systemic approach to ethics and values in design education.},
keywords = {Critique, Design Education, Ethics and Values},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
The design community has discussed issues of ethics and values for decades, but less attention has been paid to the question of how an ethical sensibility might be developed or taken on by design students. In this analysis, we explore how normative concerns emerge through the process of design reviews—where a developing designer’s normative infrastructure is engaged with the artifact they are designing. We focused on the normative concerns that were foregrounded by two undergraduate and two graduate industrial design students across a series of five design reviews, addressing the possible relationship between the emergence of normative concerns and the inscription of norms in the final designed artifact. We used several critical qualitative techniques, including sequence analysis and meaning reconstruction to locate areas where normative concerns were addressed.
Normative concerns only arose in explicit form in the earliest review sessions on the graduate level, if they were going to arise at all, and end-user research appeared to be the primary mechanism for introducing norms into the design process. Neither instructor actively engaged or foregrounded the normative infrastructure of the design students, and all of the normative concerns discussed in the four cases were brought to the conversation by students. Implications for including awareness of normative concerns as part of a student’s developing design character are considered as part of a systemic approach to ethics and values in design education.
Normative concerns only arose in explicit form in the earliest review sessions on the graduate level, if they were going to arise at all, and end-user research appeared to be the primary mechanism for introducing norms into the design process. Neither instructor actively engaged or foregrounded the normative infrastructure of the design students, and all of the normative concerns discussed in the four cases were brought to the conversation by students. Implications for including awareness of normative concerns as part of a student’s developing design character are considered as part of a systemic approach to ethics and values in design education.
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, 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},
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, 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.