The blogpost is a reflective post in response to the paper The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy (Mcdonald, 2019). The paper is based on a study in the US and in the field of design, so I suggest that there are some cultural differences to consider around the notion of a ‘critique’. Many of the example teaching activities outlined in the paper seem to be closer to what in our UAL Fine Art department we would call ‘Tutorials’ – the regular, usually weekly one-to-one discussions with students whereby instructors provide feedback and formatively evaluate work in progress. Critiques in Fine Art at UAL, tend to be group-based and scheduled after the delivery of a formal or informal exhibition of artworks, providing a formative assessment of the work (not assessed), and inclusive of students providing feedback to each other. This discrepancy in terminology is interesting as it suggests that critiques as pedagogical tool can vary between disciplines and institutions, not just between instructors as the paper identifies. Some of the troublesome aspects of critiques highlighted in the literature review are that they exacerbate unequal relationships between students and instructors, and that instructors may impose their own personal and subjective design ideals on students. The paper uses the conceptual framework of ‘moral goods’ proposed by philosophers such as MacIntyre and Taylor to understand the ‘moral judgements’ that educators make during critiques such as whether the student’s work, progress, or development is good/bad, right/wrong, better/worse. The paper concludes that sometimes the educator would have to make a moral good of one kind over another, such as choosing to improve a student’s motivation over providing critical feedback on their coursework.
As course leader of BA Fine Art: Computational Arts, I am responsible for designing the curriculum and have made the decision to not make tutorials the principal mode of pedagogical delivery as is often the case in Fine Art. Instead, our course uses seminar-lectures and workshops as it’s main form of delivery, to encourage group cohesion and student-to-student interaction, group participation, and avoid the trappings of relying too heavily on one-to-one tutorials. Students that require additional tutorials to the ones scheduled can book these with their preference of tutor or technician. The issues highlighted by the paper echo some of my own concerns with their use, and arguably, the very fact that instructors have to navigate a very complex and sensitive juggle of moral goods is in itself a reason to use them sparingly. The work of the instructor becomes increasingly riddled with emotional labour and pastoral support during regular tutorials, often putting educators under duress to deliver the right balance of moral judgements and support for students. Providing a more balanced approach to teaching allows the educator some respite and encourages students to develop the ability to provide each other feedback and support with their projects.
Next steps in applying the learning:
- Revise with staff and students the balance of tutorials against other teaching activities.
- support staff with added pastoral duties that come with increased tutorials.
- Meet the college’s requirements for tutorial time, whilst maintaining the group-based culture of the course.
References
McDonald, J.K. and Michela, E., 2019. The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy. Design Studies, 62, pp.1-35.