Reading The Design Critique and the Moral Goods of Studio Pedagogy by Jason K. McDonald and Esther Michela made me reflect on my own experiences with critiques and offering feedback in creative education. The paper introduces the concept of “moral goods” in studio pedagogy, emphasizing how critiques shape both students’ learning and instructors’ teaching approaches. While critiques play a vital role in helping students develop technical skills, independent thinking, and confidence, they can also be emotionally challenging.
Balancing Constructive Criticism and Emotional Well-being
A key issue raised in the paper is the emotional impact of critiques, particularly when delivered in public settings. This has made me more conscious of how I deliver critiques and how different students respond. I have found that giving feedback in a one-to-one setting is much easier than in front of a group. In private sessions, students tend to be more open and receptive, without the pressure of their peers watching. This allows for more in-depth discussions and tailored feedback that directly addresses their concerns. In contrast, group critiques can sometimes make students hesitant to engage, either out of fear of judgment or reluctance to challenge others’ opinions. One-to-one settings create a more comfortable space for constructive dialogue, making the critique process more effective and supportive.
A challenge I often face is having to provide direct feedback due to time constraints, whether it’s the limited time I have with the student or their impending hand-in deadline. In these situations, I sometimes worry that my feedback might come across as too intense or direct. However, clear and immediate guidance is often necessary to help them make quick improvements. Finding the right balance between being efficient and supportive remains a challenge, as I want to ensure they leave with actionable insights without feeling discouraged.
Balancing my own influence and bias with students’ aesthetics is something I actively consider when giving feedback. Students often ask me directly what makes a “good” layout or which font they should use, but I avoid providing definitive answers. If I were to dictate a singular “correct” approach, it could lead to homogenized work where students simply follow instructions rather than developing their own creative identities. Instead, I encourage them to engage in thorough research, emphasizing that understanding what makes a layout effective comes from exploration and analysis rather than prescriptive rules. This approach aligns with Self-Determination Theory by Deci and Ryan (1985), which highlights the importance of autonomy, competence, and motivation in learning. Providing direct answers could reduce students’ sense of ownership over their creative decisions, making them overly dependent on external validation rather than developing their own judgment. By fostering autonomy and guiding students toward self-directed inquiry, I help them build the confidence and analytical skills necessary to shape their own design identities while ensuring meaningful engagement with their work.
While critiques are valuable for learning and development, they must be carefully structured to balance constructive feedback with student well-being. Time constraints, power dynamics, and emotional impact all influence how critiques are received and their effectiveness in fostering growth. Reflecting on my own experiences, I see the importance of creating a supportive yet efficient feedback environment, one that encourages learning without overwhelming students. Moving forward, I aim to refine my approach by ensuring feedback remains clear, purposeful, and adaptable to different student needs and contexts.
For further context on critiques in the studio enviroment refer to my notes “Design Crits: The Negatives and Positives“
Bibliography
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Springer.
McDonald, J.K. and Michela, E., 2019. “The design critique and the moral goods of studio pedagogy.” Design Studies, 62, pp.1–35.