Key Findings

The key findings from the project included:

• The main finding of the study was to validate the use of these experimental crits as viable alternatives to the Traditional Crit.
• The Focus Groups confirmed previous research regarding the Traditional Crit. Negative aspects of the crit of student nervousness, tiredness and the dependence on the ability to present in front of the class rather than design was noted.
• The research results were positive and demonstrated the potential for new ways to engage students in the context of the design crit. While the Traditional Crit was a source of anxiety for a significant number of students (45%), it was also highly valued by students, almost as an initiation ritual, and a part of their identity as architectural and design students.
• While the Speed Crit was perceived as being the most productive crit, all of the experimental crits performed as good as, or better than, the Traditional Crit. Taking up these ideas fits into existing course structures, because they provide alternatives to the Traditional Crit, and are aimed at being located in a course at the interim and final design stages, the very points where the Traditional Crit currently sits.

Key Recommendations

The project made a number of recommendations in relation to good practice and future research:

Introducing new crit types | Introducing new crit types, via the interim crit, exposes students to new experiences of critique which are less intimidating to them.

Students learn from a crit context | Peer-feedback, evaluation and critique (as shown by the Speed Crit and the Judging Panel Crits) are valid ways of students learning from a crit context. Students considered such learning experiences as productive (especially in the Speed Crit).

Increase students’ confidence in Traditional Crits | New crit types are ways to emphasis specific aspects of learning. By introducing experimental crits (for example at the interim crit stage) students may learn targeted skills (e.g. critique in the Judging Panel crit, receiving criticism in the Speed Crit, understanding how their work is received and how to better communicate ideas in the Open Marking Session) which increase their confidence in Traditional Crits.

Reducing students’ anxiety levels | While the Traditional Crit is a point of anxiety, the focus groups indicated that it is still a highly valued learning tool, and, perhaps more importantly, a distinguishing factor of design education which students appreciate. Because it is valued, rather than simply replacing the Traditional Crit, supplementing it with other crit types may increase student skills and so reduce anxiety levels experienced in the Traditional Crit.

Future research | Further areas of research include validation of the study over time to monitor whether newness of crit types impacted on results. Lack of familiarity may have impacted on student perception of the crit. This perception may have impacted on whether students consider the crit type to be better fitted to an interim, final, or both interim and final crit, because the full potential of the crit may not yet be apparent. Formal evaluation of staff perception of the crit types as teaching tools will also add to an understanding regarding the validity of the crit types. Comparative work regarding the quality of student work and different crit types was also not part of this study.