I want to focus on tackling the larger topic of assessment whilst also embedding new ways of supporting and growing course community, self-directed learning and agency over one’s work.
I have ideas that are possibly too large to implement for the intervention which effect course structure which I know is not something that cannot be easily changed independently. My wider idea is the introduction of cross year group sign up modules which follow a less ridged assessment model where students will be encouraged to submit more open-ended outcomes. This could include samples, process documentation, or reflective pieces, supporting different learning styles and valuing experimentation. Group crits will replace 1-to-1 tutorials, embedding feedback within a communal, discursive environment that mirrors industry practice and supports confidence-building. This is something i came across when guest lecturing at Kingston University on their Graphic Design course.
However, for this intervention I feel that I need to start with a small part of that wider idea, possibly introducing a more regular group crit experience, or addressing formative assessment. Previous reflective writing on adapting the Crit from term 1.
The breakdown of my intervention which pilots some my wider idea:
Intervention: Cross-Year Group Crit Series Key Focus: Community building & peer feedback
Breakdown: Introduce a recurring, cross-year group crit series (e.g. once per term) where students bring in works-in-progress, share intentions, and receive peer/tutor feedback in a structured format.
Ideas:
- Curated by theme, material, or technique (not year level).
- Use guiding prompts to scaffold reflection and dialogue.
- Rotate roles (e.g. presenter, respondent, observer) to build agency.
- Provide an optional short reflective statement post-crit.
Things I am going to do to prep for this is:
- Discuss with pathway leader on timetabling practicality
- Consider where in the year is this going to be most useful for the students
Questions to help formulate the session:
- What am I wanting students to get out of this crit?
- What are students needing/wanting? Possibly put together a feedback system where students can help build the crit session with me, so they are included in the planning process.
- Is creating a sign-up crit system too exclusive? How can everyone be offered this option to be involved? Possibly run 3 groups of 20 students.
Thanks for this Ellie – sounds like a very useful intervention. Since beginning the PGCert, I have totally changed how I run group crits. Chuck sent me details of Das Theatre’s feedback model and I highly recommend it! I have received extremely positive feedback from students since doing this, they are visibly more engaged and keen to come to crits. The model is outlined in a video, so it’s digestible. https://www.atd.ahk.nl/en/theatre-programmes/das-theatre/study-programme/feedback-method-1/
This is a really exciting and thoughtful intervention Ellie, it tackles both the need for more inclusive assessment practices and the often-overlooked value of building a strong, cross-year studio community. I love how you’re taking a larger, structural idea (rethinking assessment and agency) and finding a manageable, practical entry point through the cross-year crit series.
Framing crits around theme, material, or technique rather than year group is a great way to shift focus away from hierarchical structures and towards shared inquiry and peer learning. Rotating roles and offering guiding prompts are good strategies to encourage participation from a range of learners, especially those who might otherwise feel hesitant to contribute.
Including students in co-designing the format could really strengthen buy-in and relevance; perhaps through a simple feedback form or a short co-planning session. Re: your concern about exclusivity with sign-ups, maybe a hybrid model could work? A mix of voluntary sign-ups and open invitations across the groups might help ensure broader access while keeping the groups small enough for meaningful discussion.
This could grow into something bigger and more embedded, it’s a strong step toward reimagining crit culture as a more supportive, collaborative, and student-centred space.
This sounds like an ambitious undertaking, but the idea of implementing a different style of crit seems doable. And it seems like an idea that reflects some of our larger discussions about studio practice and collective learning.
I think what was apparent was a need to redistribute power to a plurality of perspectives. The 1-to-1 tutorial does often seem to reinforce the power of a single person, thus to have collective criticism not only allows for multiple people to read the text through their own multiple perspectives, but to also empower the student body to develop their own voices for criticism. I think this is a much needed intervention and I would be curious to see how it lands within the programme. Do the students have an opportunity to work in studio together? Would peers/students be encouraged to participate in the crit? How would you encourage that?
This sounds like a very exciting proposition Ellie. I would be interested to know if this becomes embedded for a particular year group as part of their formative feedback, and if so, is there any way that the feedback can be captured, so from the student who is presenting’s position, could this feedback be fully utilised as something that they are able to embed in their unit progression, either in an evaluative price of writing, or in the application of ‘knowledge’ in a learning outcome for example?