Dear All,






Time is indeed the perennial bug bear of design education ... how much  
is too much?, how much it too little?, and more importantly, how much  
time is actually afforded by the institution? Unfortunately, the  
latter tends to overweigh any rational and objective conclusions about  
the most appropriate lengths of time that we might provide our  
students in a review, crit, or whatever we want to call it.

I am very clear with myself, as are the members of this forum, as to  
the inherent semantics and etymology of terms that we use, however  
that being said, and to not sound like i am contradicting myself, i do  
not get so hung up on the semantics of review or crit, as I think this  
somewhat perhaps misses the point. Who cares if the student is  
intimidated by the nature of the crit? There are many things in life  
that we just have to stoically buck up, and get on with. The student  
certainly does not know what is in their best interests, but it is our  
responsibility to ensure that they are provided with fundamental  
skills to address the cold hard world beyond the hallowed halls of the  
University and not wrap them in cotton wool.


If we are explicit to ourselves and to our students about the  
intention of the forum; whether it be to provide formative feedback,  
or as a means through which to assess in real-time student's  
presentation skills, or whether it is forum through which to assess  
how well the student's project has addressed/demonstrated the learning  
objectives of their brief, then questions of time and student numbers  
answer themselves. They become simple logistical exercises that a  
calculator can answer (in theory). However, and this is the  
unfortunate reality of the modern institution, whether i am provided  
with the resources to effectively provide each student with the time  
required to give them the feedback that they need is another issue  
entirely, and one that i am not sure that i have yet been able to  
answer – But i continue to try ; )


In keeping with the nature of this particular list however, i would  
like to further the discussion by perhaps specifically addressing two  
separate audiences; firstly the PhD/Postgraduate student in Design,  
and secondly the Undergraduate student in Design.

In Architecture, we assess Postgraduate students in Critique forums  
that prepare them for the harsh world that they will enter into; in  
professional practice or in academe. Time is generally not a problem  
here and nor are student numbers. Interim reviews align with required  
University postgraduate milestone assessments, that are often more to  
do with administrative benchmarking rather then about assessing issues  
to do with content or the structured advancement of the topic by the  
student. In our Coursework Masters program students are assessed  
against National Competency Standards in Architecture with some poetic  
license and project specific editing applied by myself as coordinator.  
These standards are used to accredit each program in Australia on  
rolling graduation cycles (generally every 5 years). These particular  
students receive anywhere between 30-60 minutes depending on the  
nature of the projects they are investigating, their complexity, and  
the criteria against which the project and its author (the student) is  
being assessed.

As for the Undergraduate cohort, i am sure many of you would concur,  
the question of time can be a red herring: a 'how long is a piece of  
string' question as it were. I have some students whom present clear,  
concise, well thought through and rigorously researched projects whose  
drawings have their own clear and articulate voice. These  
presentations may only that take 5 minutes, with 10 or so minutes of  
very directed and considered discussion by the crit panel. I wish i  
had more students like these as they are rare ; ( However, the  
majority of my Undergraduate students generally require 20-30 minutes  
each in order to effectively draw out initially what the heck their  
project is on about, and then discuss it relative to the criteria  
against which it is being assessed.







Regards,


: : c h r i s b r i s b I n : :
B. Des. Studies, B. Architecture [ hon I ]


Lecturer in Design [ Architecture ]

Doctoral Candidate of the ATCH Research Group UQ
[ architecture/theory/criticism/history ]
http://www.architect.uq.edu.au/atch/

Research Member of the AMDM Research Group QUT
[ arts/media/design/modernity ]

personal web site
http://web.mac.com/christopherbrisbin/

s-architecture web blog
http://s-architecture.blogspot.com/

downloadable e-print publications
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Brisbin,_Christopher.html


[ postal ]
School of Design
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
2 George Street, Brisbane 4000
[GPO Box 2434]
CRICOS No. 00213J

[ e ] [log in to unmask]
[ p ] +61 7 3138 2903