Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critiquing contemporary interior design students

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents findings from an instructional-based inquiry, aimed to evaluate the critiquing characteristics of an accredited interior design program, and to optimize the experience of studio-based feedback practices for contemporary students. This investigation pre-dates the unprecedented shift to remote instruction due to the global pandemic, providing a unique snapshot of Generation Z emergent designers at a time when in-person feedback reigned. Data was collected through an anonymous, voluntary survey which invited students to share their experiences and perceptions of various modalities of project feedback. The findings are four-fold. First, students view critique not merely as a validation or gatekeeping function but as an interactive form of guidance, underscoring the necessity of harmonizing directive discourse with empowering feedback. Second, methods like peer reviews, desk crits, and illustrative feedback are seen as particularly beneficial, being both personalized and intimate, and are valued equally in both in-studio and out-of-studio settings. Third, 1–2 weekly contact hours with instructors is preferred for project feedback, pointing to a possible disparity between student expectations and prevailing practices. Finally, students recognized the potential benefits of using online critiquing tools for project feedback, even prior to the extensive uptake of online platforms during the pandemic in which students had little experience using them. This study contributes valuable context to the future of interior design education, and illustrates areas in which research concerning modern students and instructional practices can be further developed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albadi, N., & Zollinger, S. W. (2021). Dominant learning styles of interior design students in Generation Z. Journal of Interior Design, 46(4), 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, B. (2006). Perception interpretation impact; an examination of the learning value of formative feedback to students through the design studio critique (Doctoral dissertation, Institute of Education, University of London).

  • Boling, E., Gray, C. M., & Smith, K. M. (2020). Educating for design character in higher education: Challenges in studio pedagogy.

  • Carless, D. (2022). Feedback for student learning in higher education. In R. Tierney, F. Rizvi, K. Ercikan, G. Smith (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education, 4th ed. (pp. 623–629).

  • Carless, D. (2015). Excellence in university assessment: Learning from award-winning practice. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., To, J., Kwan, C., & Kwok, J. (2020). Disciplinary perspectives on feedback processes: Towards signature feedback practices. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1158–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C. K. Y., & Luo, J. (2022). Exploring teacher perceptions of different types of ‘feedback practices’ in higher education: Implications for teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(1), 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannels, D., Gaffney, A. H., & Martin, K. N. (2008). Beyond content, deeper than delivery: What critique feedback reveals about communication expectations in design education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), n2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dannels, D. P., Housley Gaffney, A. L., & Martin, K. N. (2011). Students’ talk about the climate of feedback interventions in the critique. Communication Education, 60(1), 95–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirkan, H., & Demirbaş, Ö. O. (2008). Focus on the learning styles of freshman design students. Design Studies, 29(3), 254–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePietro, A. (2020). Here’s a look at the impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) on colleges and universities in the U.S. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/04/30/impact-coronavirus-covid-19-colleges-universities/

  • Esterhazy, R. (2018). What matters for productive feedback? Disciplinary practices and their relational dynamics. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1302–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischmann, K. (2019). From studio practice to online design education: Can we teach design online? Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 45(1).

  • Fleischmann, K. (2020). Hands-on versus virtual: Reshaping the design classroom with blended learning. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 1474022220906393.

  • Giray, L. (2022). Meet the centennials: Understanding the generation Z students. International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews, 2(4), 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hokanson, B. (2012). The design critique as a model for distributed learning. In the next generation of distance education (pp. 71–83). Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jarecke, S. (2020). Student-faculty interactions as predictors of retention and satisfaction among Generation Z college students. South Dakota State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohnová, L., & Papula, J. (2020). Generation Z: Social media as a tool for education. In: the 7th European Conference on Social Media ECS.

  • Lai, K. W., & Hong, K. S. (2015). Technology use and learning characteristics of students in higher education: Do generational differences exist? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 725–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, C. (2008). Metaphor and pedagogy in the design practicum. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maina, J. J., & Ibrahim, R. H. (2019). Socialisation mediates the relationship between learning environments and architecture students’ academic performance. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 6(3), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. K., & Michela, E. (2019). The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy. Design Studies, 62, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J., & Michela, E. (2022). “This uncertain space of teaching:” How design studio instructors talk about design critiques along with themselves when giving critiques. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 22(1), 48–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megahed, N. (2018). Reflections on studio-based learning: Assessment and critique. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 16(1), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, K. A., & Mohr, E. S. (2017). Understanding Generation Z students to promote a contemporary learning environment. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 1(1), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochsner, J. K. (2000). Behind the mask: A psychoanalytic perspective on interaction in the design studio. Journal of Architectural Education, 53(4), 194–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, Y., Ishizaki, S., Gross, M. D., & Do, E. Y. L. (2013). A theoretical framework of design critiquing in architecture studios. Design Studies, 34(3), 302–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, S., & Shreeve, A. (2017). Art and design pedagogy in higher education: Knowledge, values, and ambiguity in the creative curriculum. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, P. C., & Gray, C. M. (2022). Separating grading and feedback in UX design studios. EduCHI, 22, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawlusyk, P. E. (2018). Assessment in higher education and student learning. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 21.

  • Salama, A. M., & El-Attar, M. S. (2010). Student perceptions of the architectural design jury. Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 4(2–3), 174–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K. (2019). The role of failure in learning how to create in art and design. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2019). Generation Z learns: A guide for engaging generation Z students in meaningful learning. Independently published. ISBN-13: 978–1092872416

  • Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2017). Generation Z: Educating and engaging the next generation of students. About Campus, 22(3), 21–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. (2020). When students become Critics: Reviewing peer reviews in theory and practice. Charrette, 6(1), 71–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, P. (2012). Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(1), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, A. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and social interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uluoǧlu, B. (2000). Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies, 21(1), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vo, H. (2020). Interest in design studios: A theoretical framework of teaching creativity for millennials and generation Z. In: the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, Cham, pp. 152–158.

  • Webster, H. (2006). A Foucauldian look at the design jury. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winstone, N., & Carless, D. (2019). Designing effective feedback processes in higher education: A learning-focused approach. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wragg, N. (2020). Online communication design education: The importance of the social environment. Studies in Higher Education, 45(11), 2287–2297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2015). Effective feedback design using free technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 408–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhan, Y. (2022). Developing and validating a student feedback literacy scale. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(7), 1087–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Design, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA

    Jody Nyboer

Authors
  1. Jody Nyboer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jody Nyboer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare relevant to this article’s content.

Informed consent

The data presented in this study originates from a voluntary educational activity and was collected for instructional purposes. Informed consent was obtained from all participating students. To ensure compliance with ethical standards, the author formally submitted an exempt IRB application to the host academic institution, which was duly reviewed.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nyboer, J. Critiquing contemporary interior design students. Int J Technol Des Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09872-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09872-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation