Reflections and Responces on the Reading from Workshop 1

‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy by Jason K. McDonald and Esther Michela, Brigham Young University, USA’

I was happy to read ‘The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy by Jason K. McDonald and Esther Michela, Brigham Young University, USA’.  This paper attempted to reflect on the significance of critiques within the context of Studio Practice, particularly for teachers of whom they call ‘instructors’ of Design within this paper. The significance of critique within our studio practice at CCW, where I am a tutor on the Fine Art painting specialism strongly remains a method in which to enhance and enrich our understanding of studio culture too, and so within these notes I hope to contribute towards some personal analytical reflection on our studio pedagogy.

The form of the paper followed the in-depth interviews that the authors conducted with all six studio instructors in order to understand how both 1:2:1 and group critiques play a crucial role in shaping the studio environment in order to facilitate the pursuit and realization of moral goods. It suggests that through critiques, instructors structure the studio ecology in a way that fosters positive outcomes aligned with their moral values. I identified the moral goods to have included those relating to; student development, self-cultivation, and the well-being of other stakeholders.

I sort to encode that ‘Moral goods’ perhaps means to teach in a manner that accords to notions of what is good or right, to conduct oneself in a way that has moral values. That to teach, morality is to convey to another that which is good or right. Objectively good rather than what is relative to our judgments, a good grounded in the nature that acts as independent of our own subjective satisfaction represented by our knowledge of social and cultural norms and capacity to include honesty, an overall sense of value as such.

Student development could be defined as ‘the ways that a student grows, progresses, increases their developmental capabilities as a result of enrolment in a higher education context. Ultimately to better equip students to become well- rounded individuals who possess the skills to succeed. We can do this through academics, but we can also do this through the right environment to succeed in, such as physiological safety, belongingness, esteem, and self- actualisation. Within the paper the first theme, ‘goods of student development’, includes the development of disciplinary expertise and other forms of student growth. The authors note that instructors may not always accurately predict what qualifies as a student good, highlighting the complexity of achieving positive outcomes.

Self- cultivation; is perhaps to develop one’s own mind or capacity through one’s own efforts, so that learners can realise their own way.

Well-being of other stakeholders; The building of trust primarily with the students, but also the technical staff, administrators, tutors, service providers, other related institutions. In my case within Paining at CCW, it may be external speakers for talks, galleries, museums, awards, etc. Whomever is critical for student growth and creating a safe environment for communication and interaction in blended and online learning. And ensuring that the organisation is capable of supporting and helping individual pupils achieve their potential.

The discussion on why critiques matter revolves around the idea that critiques provide a practical mechanism for observing and intervening in students’ work, facilitating quick responses to emerging issues. The studio environment is interestingly likened to an improvisational space where everyone, including students, needs to commit to a common set of rules for critiques to be effective. The authors emphasize the importance of students’ willingness to engage in the critique process for it to fulfil its potential as a method of collaborative learning and improvement. So critiques are interestingly viewed in this sense as multidimensional performances that reflect the dynamic forces shaping the studio ecosystem. The authors touch upon the numerous complexities and nuances of critiques in the studio environment, acknowledging both positive and negative dimensions. The manner in which critiques unfold is seen as having a structurally interdependent relationship with the expected patterns of behaviour within a discipline.

I was interested to read in chapter 3.2 Goods of student development – 3.2.1 student goods brought about by studio critiquesthe case study of Carl and his approach to fostering change in a students practice through feedback.

Interviewee ‘Carl’ provided an example of why a crit matters to a participant which I relate to; “thinks critiques help students cultivate independent thought ‘if I’m doing my job well…students come alive and suggest their own ideas about a project’, John mentioned he hopes critiques leave students ‘with a better understanding of their weaknesses, some of their strengths.. the need for continual feedback and iteration, and confidence that they can succeed when they go through the process enough’.

This provoked questioning for me as a tutor as to how we establish an understanding of the benefits of what we deliver can actually be achieved? Do we know if we are going too far? Not far enough?

‘Yet, while participants regularly anticipate these types of student goods, they also told us they cannot predict what benefits will actually be achieved in a given, concrete situation. As Richard stated, critiques “lead to surprises.” Even so, they did not seem troubled by this, and tended to assume that what- ever resulted from a critique was likely to bring about some good, even if that good could not be named in advance. Walter summarized this when he said, “I don’t have a rigid set of expected competencies for [students] to meet . If they are trying, if they are motivated, then we win. And I’m happy.” Other participants told us that this unpredictability helped them better meet students’ needs. Alex noted this when he framed his critiques as a way of creating a “free-flowing environment” in the studio, allowing him to carry out his teaching in the spirit of a conversation where he continually asks, “what do you guys want to learn about? Let’s learn that.” (Page 14 of 3.2.1 student goods bought about by studio critique)

It is an interesting idea from Alex to open up ‘the choice of learning’ by engaging in an active free flowing learning environment lead by the students. A way for the student good to more directly share ideas, solve problems, struggle with complex questions, make decisions, propose solutions, explain ideas through discussion.

On 3.2.2 Are instructors always right about student goods? There was particularly on page 15 the idea about when to go about adjusting the moral good to suit the individual needs of the student and thus also the group which stood out to me as being important. To be able to be flexible and remain geared towards the needs of the individual within a group context.

“the instructors pursuit of moral goods not being conflated with them trying to accomplish something beneficial for the students. The difference between the pursuit of a good and actually achieving that good”.

What was demonstrated in the case study was instructor Monica’s description of a student called Lisa. Monica was trying to help Lisa who was seemingly lazy, by pushing her harder to achieve, however this was not an accurate assessment of what the student actually needed, and what was good for the student ended up being counterproductive. Monica realised this and adjusted her actions accordingly and overlooked other forms of student good that were better suited for Lisas current needs “(such as; it is good for students to remain motivated and engaged)”.

It makes me consider how often we as instructors may over estimate students abilities, underestimate perhaps, or ourselves have limited or inaccurate, biased views where we may miss the bigger picture of what the student and their practice might actually be able to accomplish.

It reminds me of an overseas student I had of part 1 this year within a crit context, whom didn’t wish to involve himself in the small group crits of 4-6 people. I knew on the one hand it would be good to encourage him to throw himself in the deep end and to try but I sensed from him that he was very reluctant and uncomfortable and might also leave him feeling that he wasn’t being listened too and distract the group from the student good. So I adjusted my actions and I let the student sit it out so that he was comfortable partaking from a distance, whilst still in the class. I chose to put aside my values of student development for the individual in order to prioritise the students well-being and the studio ecology and development of the group.

In the conclusion the authors contend that critiques matter for instructors because they serve as a means for them to actively exercise agency in the studio. The narrative of an instructor, like Monica, grappling with difficult experiences and making conscious choices in subsequent critiques exemplifies this active agency. The text emphasizes that instructors are not bound by deterministic reactions; instead, they have the capacity to reflect, make decisions in the moment, and shape their responses for future situations.

Page 30 under Conclusion 4.3: ‘We argue that this means that critiques also matter for instructors because they are the means by which they exercise active agency as studio participants. Take, for instance, how Monica described reengaging with students with whom she has difficult experiences. Whatever in her personality and back- ground leads her to shy away from conflict, it does not control her in a deterministic sense. While her initial reaction may appear to be a near-instinctual response, as she faces these students in future critiques she is forced to confront her previous judgment (see Kerdeman, 2003). As she does so, she can choose a new course, not only making decisions that she considers to be better in-the- moment, but, we argue, will also enable her to respond similarly to comparable situations she may face in the future. In some sense she recognizes that “[she is]’ not condemned only to re-creating cultural scripts . [but is] part of the scripting and constitution of [her] personhood” (Sugarman, 2005, p. 806).