Balancing Jury Critique in Design Reviews

CEBE Transactions, Vol. 3, Issue 2, September 2006, pp 52-79 (28) ISSN: 1745-0322 (Online)

Balancing Jury Critique in Design Reviews Dr B.D. Ilozor School of Engineering Technology, Eastern Michigan University, USA Email: [email protected]

Abstract Jury critique is a widely accepted practice in architectural design teaching. Whilst this norm has changed little in recent years, debates about studio culture have highlighted some of its inadequacies. This paper contends that jurors provide an undue emphasis upon what they perceive to be weaknesses and deficiencies in students’ work, rather than their accomplishments. It argues that many of these judgements are based upon an insufficient understanding and consideration of project objectives, constraints, and learning environments, despite attempts to instil this information into jurors at an early stage. This paper explores and evaluates mechanisms designed to encourage a fairer system of critical review that ensures that a full range of issues are considered during review, rather than concentrating upon a narrowly focussed personalised agenda. Recommendations are made based on lessons learned from the evaluations of the jury critique outcomes from the Advanced Comprehensive Design Studio projects completed by the students of the author in USA. The conclusion is that a jury critique that considers a wide range of issues, offers a greater value, and enriches students’ learning experience, rather than providing an over-emphasis on their inadequacies. Keywords: Crit, Architectural Education, Formative Assessment, Review

52 Copyright © 2006 CEBE

B.D. Ilozor: Balancing Jury Critique in Design Reviews

Introduction Jury critique, also known as crits and design reviews particularly in the UK, is a vital form of assessing and improving students’ studio learning and knowledge. The studio has an inherent responsibility to prepare students for architecture professional practice; hence, the learning fundamentals must be connected to the realities of the architecture profession and the construction of buildings (Koch et al., 2002). Jury critique helps to achieve this purpose. However, attainment of this ideal has been minimal within most architecture schools’ studio settings. The reason lies in the value differences between practice and school emphasis. Pressman (1997) captured some of these value differences. While practicing architects owe their best design efforts to their clients, users, and society, students’ allegiance is more to their instructors or grades. Students have the luxury to respond purely to theories, as to what they and their instructors see as good, be it social, ethical, or aesthetic, and can avoid some of the inherent complexities of practice that must resolve a variety of needs, hopes and dreams, as well as contradictions. Design creativity is frequently achieved in practice based on teams, but this is not so with students, except in group works. Students are often torn between reality and theory, and they must decide whether their studio projects should respond to the real world, or purely to academic, hypothetical theories – a dichotomy that may not have been clarified by their instructors. Within this milieu, what should design review jurors be looking for in students’ work? At what level should the work be evaluated? As an important form of learning assessment, jury critique is a widely accepted practice in architecture design reviews. This norm has changed little through the years. It has been revalidated at recent studio culture sessions as a tested and enduring approach to effective studio-based education. However, as observed by a studio culture task force, there is a concern with how the function or role of jury critique is organized, and the kind of learning that is privileged by this type of set-up (Koch et al., 2002). Most jurors (faculty and guests) receive little or no formal training on how to conduct design juries, and often rely on the techniques used by their professors while they were students, however good or bad the approaches might have been (Anthony, 1991). Hence, their interest and critique focus in a student’s work tend to vary significantly, depending on their differing circumstances. These varied concentrations do not always guarantee that all vital critique areas will be adequately covered. This has a direct impact on the total value students derive from the jury process. While jurors often serve to reinforce the inadequacies in students’ work, their evaluations tend to be largely based on insufficient understanding and consideration of the project objectives, constraints, and learning environment. Despite targeted attempts to educate the jurors earlier on in the design process, it is still evident that the varied jurors’ emphasis on students’ work tends to tilt more towards identification of project deficiencies rather than accomplishments. Therefore, jury critique needs a level of

53 CEBE Transactions, Vol. 3, Issue 2, September 2006 Copyright © 2006 CEBE


restructuring and/or balancing if tangible values must be added to the students’ learning process. In order to achieve some balance within these juror differences, this paper calls for, and aims to explore avenues to a more representative jury selection and assignment for fruitful application to comprehensive design reviews. The key issues are presented under the following: case study, review and format, final review compilation and discussion, recommendation, and conclusion. Recommendations are made based on lessons learned, and re-evaluations of the jury critique outcomes from Advanced Comprehensive Design Studio projects completed by the students of the author at Hampton University, USA. Though it sets aside other frameworks within which jury critique might be effectively considered, it is felt that this presentation will provide some contexts in which design reviews can be improved through a structured jury critique approach, to ensure that vital design issues are not overlooked. Based on the author’s experience and objective analysis of observations, the conclusion is that a more representative jury critique would offer a greater value, and enrich students’ learning experience and exposition, rather than over-emphasize their inadequacies. A representative jury addresses all design issues such as theory, site planning, structures, services, etc. However, based on the author’s experience while teaching beginning and intermediate design studios, the representative, structured jury critique approach may be more applicable to the upper design studio levels, which are much more comprehensive, and likely to be designed with specific requirements and constraints.

Case Study Gethsemane Baptist Church Complex, Newport News, Virginia, was a studentcommunity collaboration project designed in fulfilment of the Advanced Comprehensive Architecture Design Studio for Fall 2004. The project took the form of a competition due to an arrangement between the author and the Church. The student with the winning design was awarded a prize, with an architectural firm taking over the student’s presentation-level design to prepare detailed construction working drawings. The winning student and his class mates were invited to participate in the final construction drawings documentation, and the contract and construction processes, while they completed their final year architecture thesis in 2005. This project was comprised of three main parts: sanctuary, education, and sports facilities. The project presented an opportunity for complex and contextual issues of a complete architecture design in an urban setting, with the need for a comprehensive consideration of site, client’s requirements, orientation, environmental relationships, and building systems integration for sustainable communities. The purpose was to tie students’ learning outcomes to the Department’s objectives, and relate them to specific National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) Student Performance Criteria. As a real client and site were involved, the students undertook the project in comprehensive



and practical ways. For further information about the required activities and students’ evaluative measurements, please see Tables 1, 2, and 3 in Appendix 1.

Reviews and Format There were two major reviews – the mid term and final reviews. These reviews were supplemented by five milestones with mini-review sessions. Besides setting an agenda or program for time management and alertness on the part of the students, the milestone reviews enabled the progressive acquaintance and introduction of potential major review jurors to the project and the students. The intention was to inform the jurors of the project’s objectives, constraints, and learning environments, and to facilitate their familiarity and interaction with the students and their projects before the final reviews. The intent was to remove or limit the problem of insufficient knowledge of the project by the jurors, and the anxiety the students may experience while presenting their final work for jurors with whom they have little familiarity. Usually the students were divided into two groups, and assigned their share of jurors. Although this division prevented the students from participating one hundred percent in the reviews, it was necessary due to the limited available time. In order to make up for this shortcoming through a complete feedback to the students, and to enable a publication such as this one, the jurors were asked to endeavour to put down as much of their comments as possible on the evaluation sheets provided for them. Some jurors were also allowed to roam between the two groups. Table 3 shows the evaluation sheet provided for the jurors to make their comments and indicative overall ratings for various aspects of the students’ projects. The intention was to comprehensively capture the jurors’ perceptions of the students’ performance in the broad range of skills and knowledge required at the comprehensive design studio level.

Final Review Compilation and Discussion Despite earlier advice, some jurors still failed to set down their comments for some students. Some did not write down anything, and were therefore not included or mentioned in this compilation. Positive and negative remarks of the jurors were noted. However, there were instances where some jurors’ comments were deemed neither clearly positive nor negative. This compilation includes situations where a student was reviewed by at least two jurors, so as to enable easy appreciation of any differences or similarities. For confidentiality reasons, the jurors’ professions and initials, but not their full names, have been provided: 1. SK – Senior Planner, Newport News City, Virginia 2. AH –Senior Planner, Newport News City, Virginia 3. AJ – Adjunct Professor of Hampton University’s Department of Architecture



4. DH – Client Representative, Gethsemane Baptist Church, Newport News, Virginia 5. DR – Client Representative, Gethsemane Baptist Church, Newport News, Virginia 6. DeH – Assistant Professor of Hampton University’s Department of Architecture 7. CS – Associate Professor of Hampton University’s Department of Architecture 8. SC – Assistant Professor of Hampton University’s Department of Architecture 9. BM – Project Manager, Livas Group Architects, Norfolk, Virginia – an alumnus of Hampton University’s Department of Architecture, whose firm had designed a Church auditorium for Gethsemane Baptist Church, Newport News, Virginia. There were 17 students in this studio. The students’ details have not been given for confidentiality reasons, but rather numbers have been used to refer to the students. Jurors’ remarks (+ve & -ve) on the students’ design project for student 1 are included below in Table 4. Further details of the reviews of students 2-17 may be found in Appendix 2.

Table 4. Jurors SK, DR, and SC Comments and Indicative Rating of Student 1’s Project SK

DR

SC

East-west orientation – but no north arrow to identify that. (-ve/-ve)

Very good try. (+ve)

African American heritage – round form/great hut form/tent. (+ve)

Well thought out. (+ve) Tent-like dome tied to revival theme of African Great House. (-ve)

Broke up the parking, which is very good. (+ve)

Division of uses. (+ve) Could justify her positions. (+ve) Low adaptability of radial design. (-ve)

Brick infill and fenestration not as well coordinated as columns/folded roof/steeple. (ve/+ve)

Very good presentation. (+ve)

Buffers around parking to prevent light pollution. (+ve) Scale of wall section dominant. (-ve) Perspective of classroom does not convey its relation to main sanctuary. (-ve) Day care not specifically addressed; no drop off. (-ve) Indicative rating: 3

Indicative rating: 4

Indicative rating: 4



While all the jurors rated the students according to the evaluative instrument provided for them, it was observed that their written comments were significantly inconsistent with their ratings. On comparing the jurors’ comments and ratings, it is evident that most of the jurors criticized the students’ project deficiencies more than they commended their accomplishments – a possible reason for the observed inconsistency. Hence, even when their overall negative comments were more than double their positive comments, they still rated most students above average. The jurors’ comments rather than their ratings for the students reflected their interests, biases, and backgrounds. For instance, jurors who are practicing planners dwelt more on planning deficiencies rather than achievements. In other words, the jurors rated as they liked, and not as they were asked. No significant disparity was observed in remark and rating styles between faculty and guest jurors. Essentially, these jurors’ comments and their ratings for the students would be important to gain further pedagogical knowledge of jury critique dynamics in design reviews. It can be seen that the remarks of the jurors on the students’ work varied in length, content, and emphasis. Hence, all vital critic issues might not have been touched or covered adequately for many students. Instructor and students share responsibility for what happens during the reviews. Most studio instructors were educated to practice rather than to teach (Koch et al., 2002); hence, the level of preparation and communication that schools of architecture provide for their instructors could be different. In a situation where jurors are drawn from both full time instructors and practitioners, there are bound to be divergent views and opinions based on expositions and differing experience. While the former may be preoccupied more with the theoretical, the latter tends to stick closer to real-world design applications. Hence, without providing sufficient preparation or guidance before critiques, there is no means to ensure that the assessment atmosphere will be a healthy, constructive, and fruitful experience for the students (Koch et al., 2002). Given the complex nature of most studio projects, it is difficult for guest jurors to evaluate students’ work fairly without adequate explanation of, and acquaintance with, the project objectives, constraints, and learning environment. The students should also be guided on ways to present their projects. However, despite initial preparation of the students on effective ways to present their projects, a number of students, probably due to anxiety, explained their work in somewhat unarchitectonic jargon, some or most of which they imbibed partly or wholly from the beginning and intermediate levels. At instances when this occurred, some jurors understandably felt shut out. Hence, as these students presented as they chose, the jurors assessed as they liked. At best, they assessed the end-products rather than the process that led up to them. Appearance might have taken precedence over the big ideas and the process behind the outcomes. Others have observed that, despite the progress in ridding most schools of abuses, communication problems with many jurors



still remain (Boyer and Mitgang, 1996). The ability to communicate in the most basic terms is a challenge facing architectural education and profession (Koch et al., 2002). This circumstance points to the need for an early preparation of the students for a better juror-student presentation dialogue. Besides teaching and critique design, the students should be educated at all levels on the art of presentation and verbal communication. Some instructors rarely help the students to recognize the ideas and theories embedded in their work, or make explicit their own ideas, or reflect about their work (if they have any) and thinking, in a way that would help the students to understand the discovery-invention-production process of design (Argyris, 1981; Dutton, 1991). While the instructors are free to theorize and jargonize architecture as much as they wish, there should be a limit where they are not drawn too far away from reality, since the students assimilate their teachings, irrespective of how extreme or unrealistic their teachers may be. Explicitly explaining learning, unencumbered by selfstyled jargons, is a responsibility about which instructors ought to be more forthcoming (Koch et al., 2002). The students should not be led too far away to the extent that their communication and touch with practice and reality become limited, if not impossible. The gap between theory and practice must be bridged, especially at advanced comprehensive design studio level.

Recommendation Although no deficiencies were anticipated in the evaluation instrument used for the reviews, it can be seen that the jurors still managed to deviate to focus on their specific interests in the students’ projects. Hence, a good evaluation tool may be inappropriately or inadequately used. This reality calls not for a modification of the evaluation tool, but for a modified approach to jury selection and assignment. On any given project, architects must work with urban designers, landscape architects, contractors, engineers, building consultants, public officials, and others (Koch et al., 2002). The students must therefore be exposed to these disciplines, and their involvement in comprehensive design studio education and critique is essential, if students must derive full learning and knowledge values. Figure 1 shows expertise and disciplinary areas from where it is essential to draw and assign jurors for comprehensive design project reviews. Jurors should be assigned review responsibilities that correspond with their backgrounds and areas of interest. For instance, jurors from planning backgrounds should concentrate on the planning aspects of the students’ projects, while those from civil engineering disciplines should focus on site and civil engineering issues. The evaluation instrument if any should be prepared accordingly, and jurors selected to cover all skills and knowledge areas required for the students’ design studio level. This structure is considered comprehensive, and holds a greater value for the students’ learning gain from jury critique.



Theory/History

Regulatory Site Planning

Interiors Interiors

Compliance

Comprehensive Comprehensive Design Design Review Review

Tectonics Tectonics

Landscape Landscape

Systems Systems Integration Integration

Clients/Users Client/Users

Site SitePlanning Planning

Figure 1. Ideal Jury Constitution for Comprehensive Design Studio Review Even where there is no grading, there has to be some form of rating for students’ work, while aspiring to encourage collaboration and discouraging harmful individualism and competition among them. The students must not be overwhelmed with negative critiques that disconnect rather than connect them to the appreciation of architecture. The jury process should be further democratized, whereby the jurors are not placed in positions of absolute dictatorial powers, while the students remain as powerless subjects. Learning can be compromised in a different kind of setting. In an environment where instructors and jurors take monarch-subject postures, the students are less likely to be at ease, take risks, think and reflect critically, be imaginative and innovative, or communicate effectively (Koch et al., 2002). Design studio reviews and juries should be opportunities for respectful, two-way exchanges between the students and the jurors (Boyer and Mitgang, 1996). Even at the beginning and intermediate levels, it is worthwhile for design teaching to connect the students with the community that they will later serve as professionals. Through this connection with society, the students are exposed to collaboration, real clients and sites, hands-on learning, community interaction, socio-economic and cultural issues, and the realities of designing within constraints (Koch et al., 2002). School studio design which ignors the needs of society leads to advanced and future



difficulties in communicating with and designing for clients. Studio designs should be seen as real opportunities to collaborate with the community and offer design services and visionary, neighbourhood-enhancing solutions.

Conclusion Jury critique is a vital form of assessing and improving students’ design studio learning and knowledge. However, there is a concern with how the function or role of jury critique is organized, and the kind of learning that is privileged by this type of set-up. The problem is to a lesser degree associated with the instruments of evaluation, but rather with the organization or structuring of the reviewers, the jurors. Jurors varied attitudes towards students’ work do not always guarantee that all vital areas will be adequately covered, and this has a direct impact on the overall value students derive from the jury process. Jurors’ interests and foci change little even with dedicated familiarization with students’ work, design constraints, and learning environment. Therefore, jury critique needs a level of restructuring and/or balancing for the students to derive value from the process. This paper has offered an ideal representative jury constitution or composition and assignment for constructive, productive, and comprehensive design reviews. Though this paper sets aside other frameworks within which jury critique may be effectively considered, it is felt that this presentation will provide some contexts in which design reviews can be improved through a comprehensive, structured jury critique approach to ensure that vital issues are accommodated. The conclusion is that a more representative jury critique would offer a greater value, and enrich students’ learning experience and exposition, rather than over-emphasize their inadequacies. The representative, structured jury critique approach is best applicable to the upper design studio levels, which are much more comprehensive, and likely to be designed with specific requirements and constraints.

References Anthony, K. (1991) Design Juries on Trial: The Renaissance of the Design Studios. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Argyris, C. (1981) Architecture Education Study 1: The Papers. New Jersey: Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Boyer, E. & Mitgang, L. (1996) Building Community: A New Future for Architectural Education and Practice. Princeton, New Jersey: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Dutton, T.A. (1991) The Hidden Curriculum and the Design Studio. In Voices in Architectural Education. New York: Bergin & Gavrvey.



Koch, A., Schwennsen, K., Dutton, T.A. & Smith, D. (2002) The Redesign of Studio Culture – A Report of the AIAS Studio Culture Task Force. The District of Columbia: The American Institute of Architecture Students. Pressman, A. (1997) Professional Practice 101, a Compendium of Business and Management Strategies in Architecture. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Further Reading CABE (2005) Minority ethnic representation in the built environment professions: http://www.cabe.org.uk/publications. (accessed 20th January 2006). De Graft-Johnson, A., Manley, S. & Greed, C. (2003) Why Do Women Leave Architecture? UWE, RIBA website: http://www.riba.org/go/RIBA/Also/Education_2691.html (accessed 20th January 2006) Doidge, C., Sara, R., Parnell, R. & Parsons, M. (2000) The Crit. Oxford: Architectural Press Parnell, R. (2000) The Student led 'crit' as a learning device, in Nicol, D., Pilling, S. (Eds). Changing Architectural Education. Oxford: E & FN Spon. Sara, R. & Parnell, R. (2004) The Review Process. CEBE Transactions, 1 (2) pp. 5669.

The Author Dr. Benedict D. Ilozor was Associate Professor of Architecture during 2003-05 at the Department of Architecture, Hampton University, VA 23668, USA. He has now moved to the School of Engineering Technology, Eastern Michigan University, USA.



Appendix 1 Table 1. Advanced Design Studio Activities Week

Day/Date

Activity

1

Wed 8 Sep

Introduction to course and site visit

Fri 10 Sep

Design context and issues discussion; grouping

Mon 13 Sep

Program evaluation, design context & issues group collaboration, including building code and permit requirements

Wed 15 Sep

Precedents group investigation

Fri 17 Sep

,,

Mon 20 Sep

Precedents, program, design context and issues group presentation – submit written report

Milestone 1

Wed 22 Sep

Site analysis and study models exploration

Civil Engr.

Fri 24 Sep

,,

Prof. workshop

Mon 27 Sep

,,

Wed 29 Sep

,,

Fri 1 Oct

,,

Mon 4 Oct

Site analytical models and drawings due – demonstrate consideration and integration of physical setting issues such as regional, climatic, natural, human, vehicular (vehicular access and parking), environmental and site factors

2

3

4

5

6

7

Milestones & Reviews

Milestone 2 CE present

Wed 6 Oct

Plans, sections and elevations development, and study models

Fri 8 Oct

,,

Studio Culture

Mon 11 Oct

,,

,,

Wed 13 Oct

,,

Fri 15 Oct

Plans, sections, elevations and study model critique

Mon 18 Oct

Mid-semester review – pin up all finished drawn work and/or models to date for public critique. Printed work for pin-up to be submitted to the course professor one day ahead of pin-up date. Late submission penalties apply

Wed 20 Oct

Structural analysis

Fri 22 Oct

Mechanical, electrical, plumbing & services, accessibility and visibility means integration


Mid-semester Review Faculty & guest jurors invited


8

9

Mon 25 Oct

,,

Structural Engr

Wed 27 Oct

,,

/M&E

Fri 29 Oct

,,

Mon 1 Nov

Final presentation of structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing & services, accessibility, visibility and sustainability means integration

Milestone 3 Structural Engr., M & E present

10

11

Wed 3 Nov

Landscape architecture and urban model of project

Landscape arch

Fri 5 Nov

,,

/ Urban planner

Mon 8 Nov

,,

Wed 10 Nov

,,

Fri 12 Nov

,,

Mon 15 Nov

Final presentation of landscape architecture and urban model of project – consider connection to public utilities, and discharge of surface, waste and soil water

Milestone 4 Landscape arch. Urban planner

12

13

14

Wed 17 Nov

,,

Fri 19 Nov

,,

Mon 22 Nov

,,

Wed 24 Nov

Thanksgiving holiday – no studio

Fri 26 Nov

Thanksgiving holiday – no studio

Mon 29 Nov

Interior architecture – select interesting spaces to show in 3D/perspective/axonometric and physical model (sectional perspective and physical model a bonus), and consider issues such as volume, lighting, color, texture, and materials

Wed 1 Dec

Draw at least one fully labeled detail, cutting from the floor to the roof through locations of fenestrations

Fri 3 Dec

Present all finished drawn and/or modeled work to date

Mon 6 Dec

Prepare for final presentation

Wed 8 Dec

Final complete project presentation for public critique.

Final

Submit a brief report (minimum 5-pages, maximum 10 pages) about the project design process, from inception/conception to complete presentation drawings documentation. Printed work for pin-up to be submitted to the course professor one day ahead of pin-up date. Late submission penalties apply

Presentation

Source: Author’s Syllabus