Alexandria Engineering Journal (2020) 59, 753–762

H O S T E D BY
Alexandria University

Alexandria Engineering Journal

www.elsevier.com/locate/aej
www.sciencedirect.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Overview on the criticism process in architecture

pedagogy
Manar Abd El-Latif *, Khalid S. Al-Hagla, Asmaa Hasan

Department of Architectural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

Received 29 December 2019; revised 10 January 2020; accepted 12 January 2020

Available online 22 February 2020

KEYWORDS Abstract Critique is a primary method of assessment and feedback used in architectural education.
Architecture education; It is used extensively at the design studio where students are asked to develop, present, and discuss
Design studio; their interventions. The collaborative typology of design studio adds to the importance of critique
Critique (Crit); as an educational tool. Students are asked to present their work and discuss it with their colleagues
Assessment tools; and professors. At these cases, critique plays a key role as a tool for assessing and scrutinizing stu-
Evaluation; dents’ achievements and their creativity’ potentials.
Alexandria University This paper investigates the correlation between the typical stages of the design process and cri-
tiques sessions presented at the design studio. It reviews the literature to develop a framework to
figure out this relationship. In a further investigation step, this paper discusses the case of the
2nd-year design studio at the Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University to validate its findings. The case study proves the framework’s flexibility to be applied
in different circumstances effectively based on understandings its detailed configurations.
Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction stages. It aims to improve students’ visual design thinking

The design studio term is usually used to define a location
where the architectural design is learned and practiced. The
studio is often conceived as a laboratory or workshop in exper-
imental design [13]. This is the core of architectural education.
Its format involves high levels of Student-Centered Learning
pedagogies [15]. In the design studio, learning is inductive,
problematic and carried out through the progress in project
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: khagla@hotmail.com (K.S. Al-Hagla), arch.asmaa.
elsayed@gmail.com (A. Hasan).
Peer review under responsibility of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria
University.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.01.019
1110-0168 Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
employed in physical modeling and manual design techniques.
Questions related to conceptual designing and visual design
thinking were discussed in the studio [1].
One of the most important processes in the studio of design
is the critique. Critique is the dominant characteristic of design
education, used in formative, summative assessment and feed-
back by instructors and peers [11]. Carless et al. [4] describe it
as ‘‘dialogic processes and activities which can support and
inform the students on a current task, whilst also developing
the ability to self-regulate performance on a future task.” Cri-
tique enables both instructors to determine the level of learning
of students and make further educational decisions and learn-
ers to comprehend where they are and to review their design
process based on commentary. So, they achieve more design
754 M. Abd El-Latif et al.

experience [25]. It is recognized as an important learning
factor, which can have a significant impact on learning by
aligning the objectives of the learning setting with critics [17].
Indeed, the role of critique in design education goes beyond
its assessment function. Studio critiques are the moment in
which students learn to become members of a community of
practice, where the relationships between different members
of that community are being negotiated, where the ethos of
an individual as a designer is voiced, where independent think-
ing is nurtured, where the culture of egalitarian working space
can emerge, where social relationships and professional identi-
ties are developed and where self-analysis and reflection are
mastered [26]. So, it should Integrate with the design process
and determine which sort of critique is the best for each session
to have the most effective control mechanisms for the design
process [19].
This research investigates the correlation between the typical
stages of the design process and critiques sessions presented at
the design studio. It reviews the literature to develop a model
to figure out this relationship. And in a further investigation
step, this paper discusses the case of the 2nd-year design studio
at the department of architecture, Faculty of Engineering,
Alexandria University to validate its findings. Through a ques-
tionnaire consisting of 25 questions, the first of them is asked
about the design process, then 10 questions were multiple-
choice where the students chose Which type of this critique ses-
sions has been applied in design process’ stages, then 10 ques-
tions have a Likert-type attitude measurement items having
five levels asking about if the applied critique sessions were suit-
able for the design process’ stages or not, where 1 is the least suit-
able and 5 is the most suitable type, and the last four questions
were open-ended questions asking their thoughts on the issue.
The random sample of 35 students from the studio consisted
of 81 students has answered the questionnaire. Ultimately, the
most appropriate method or methods of critique are inferred
for use at each stage of the design process.
According to London Bone Baker Architects, the design
process enables the designer to examine and amend the infor-
mation collected during the programming phase so that new
ideas can be brainstormed and established ideas analyzed in
the schematic design phase. Consequently, ideas are improved
based on feedback from design solutions during the design
development phase, while taking into account that these design
solutions can be altered during the construction of documents
phase. In practice, these four design phases overlap with one
another, as shown in Fig. 2.
In other words, the designer moves between two cascading
stages to create and increase design information and ideas and
to find solutions to problems and fix them [16].
Coolidge [5] Stressed that the process of architectural
design must achieve the objectives according to the priorities
first objective, the top of all priorities is to deliver the main
design solution. Then, the key solution specifics should com-
plement important problems and ideas. The results of the
design would be a random series of improper decisions without
this approach. The traditional arrangement of the primary
phases of the design process is pre-design, schematic design,
design development, and construction of documents phase.

2. The architectural design process models

Fig. 1 Jones and j. christopher ’ architectural design process
model. SOURCE: BY AUTHOR.
In his book (Design Methods: Seeds of Human Future) [14]
Jones, J. Christopher cited that the design process does not
represent the process of creation but based on the principle
of the derivation of the final structure of elementary introduc-
tions, and the relevance of these introductions and the final
structure depends on three primary operations:

 First, gathering information: to include the collection of

information along with how to organize, analyze and make
sure they relate to the design position, and that such infor-
mation be integrated into the image.
 second, testing: include the design decisions through the
process of representing the intellectual capabilities and intu-
itive, and personal experience of the designer.
 third, the evaluation process: include judgment on the
appropriateness of these decisions to the problem of design
[14]. this model of the design process shown in Fig. 1.

It might be argued that this is a method involving stages of

analytical understanding, critical thinking, and decision mak-
ing. However, the design is not linear; its embedded thought
includes constant interaction between the stages [27]. Fig. 2 Phases of the design process. Source: [16].
Overview on the criticism process in architecture pedagogy
Fig. 3 Stages of the proposed process based studio teaching model by: (Ashraf M. [3]).
Nevertheless, a particular arrangement of design process’
phases can take place depending on the goals and priorities
of each design project [5].
Also, Ashraf M. Salama [3], defined the architectural design
process in the design studio as a reflective conversation
between the subjects of a given design situation. He proposed
a model for the design process based on study and analysis of
the definitions and applications of the design process in some
architecture schools such as AIA, MIT, RIBA. The model is
split into two stages by an extensive multi-layered process each
one includes two main parts. The first part is analytical under-
standing, which involves research and data collection, and the
second part is creative decision making, including the interpre-
tation and design schemes. Fig. 3 illustrates a conceptual dia-
grammatic analysis of the design process model.
The Exploration stage involves assignment delivery to clar-
ify the project objectives. In this phase, students are made
aware of the main design issues linked to the project and build-
ing type. An initial program is also available to stimulate ideas
on what to include in the project. One or more studio sessions
are devoted to examining the critical aspects of the design and
the specific issues that must be addressed in the project in
group discussions. This permits students to respond to pro-
grammatic, functional, contextual, and image problems gener-
alizations and specifics.
The information-gathering stage involving three steps; the
first is a standards revision, the second is a case study where
a comparable project is analyzed, and the third is an analysis
of the site to identify realities and constraints and
opportunities.
The interpretation stage; where data and information are
collected and converted into knowledge. Students are required
to create a personalized program based on their knowledge of
main design issues, site constraints, standards and the out-
comes of the case study and decide on priorities.
At least two alternative ideas based on the personalized
program and the imperatives set out in the third phase will
be generated. Students discuss two alternative ideas as to their
suitability, and one of them is chosen for further development
755
into two- and three-dimensional designs based on that basis
then developing a final design.
The most detailed and specialized design process applied to
the design studio is the third model developed by Ashraf Sal-
ama. It encompasses four main phases: exploration,
information-gathering, interpretation and finally, schematic
design. This paper relies on this design process in both its ana-
lytical and practical parts.
3. Integrating the critique process into the architecture design
studio
Employing the practice of critique in the design studio critique
is intended to develop the reflective and meta-cognitive abilities
of the design student, encouraging discursive exploration of
design processes, decisions, and outcomes. It is epitomized as
an intimate, often patriarchal relationship between an instruc-
tor and student [11].
Elizabeth Meyer [9] believes that employing the practice of
critique in the design studio has three important contributions
to architectural education. First of all, it helps to promote
design language precision. Critique limits the possibility of
ambiguous interpretations by describing, comparing and
applying terminology. Second, critique creates new ways of
thinking and assessing. New values and ideas are likely to arise
through the use of existing theories that reflect past values,
therefore, the Practice of critique can lead to new ways of
approaching design. And finally, the discipline’s contribution
critique can motivate for change [19]. Fig. 4 shows the impact
of employing the practice of critique in the architectural design
studio.
Based on researches, Gunday Gul and Yasemin A. [12]
define a critique as a dialogue that enhances knowledge regard-
ing design situations, design critique is advice, suggestions, and
questions regarding a project. According to them, the process
of critiquing involves supporting design-problem identification
and solving. Critiquing also helps access related issues in the
information space through emphasizing problematical situa-
756
Fig. 4 The impact of employing the practice of critique in
architectural design studio.
Fig. 5 Critique sessions types. Source: by author.
tions and improving arguments related to design solutions.
During the critique process there are two ways of interaction:
 Telling and listening.
 Representing and imitating.
In telling and listening, the significant point is to highlight
the essential concepts for the student. In representing and imi-
tating, according to Demirbas [7], work in the design studio
and work out of the studio is similar, which means that stu-
dents who have difficulty with something in life or society
may have difficulty with similar concepts in the studio. How-
ever, in the studio students may be able to learn how to con-
quer their difficulties.
In other words, critique is often a primary means of assess-
ment in the studio, allowing for regular formative development
of students’ work and mindset towards design activity. How-
ever, beyond the assessment function of critique, dialogic
activities implicit in this mode of design engagement also serve
an important function in creating a social and cultural envi-
ronment in which designedly ways of knowing are the focus
[11].
3.1. Types of critique sessions
In the assessment of architectural education, the most impor-
tant points are when critique should add to design processes
and which type of critique is appropriate to have the best
mechanisms to manage the design process for each session
[19]. Analysis of the various critique methods applied in archi-
tectural schools led to the classification of assessment instru-
M. Abd El-Latif et al.
ments in architectural design studios in 7 categories. Fig. 5
shows the types of critique sessions.
3.1.1. Individual critique (Desk Critique)
Desk critique also called preliminary crit has been defined as a
form of intermediate formative assessment that takes place in
the studio-based learning environment. It takes place as an
active one-to-one informal discussion between design the
student and the instructor, in which each instructor separately
gives formative feedback on student’s problem-solving process
and work. This form of critique is held typically at the stu-
dent’s desk and often takes place during the entire all the per-
iod of a studio through all the stages of the design process
(exploration, information-gathering, interpretation and sche-
matic design) [23].
The instructor discusses the student’s development during
the desk critique by reviewing the student’s preliminary mate-
rial, which obtained from the researches and presented it in
form of diagrams, sketches, CAD models, renditions, proto-
types and visual presentations. Concurrently, the instructor
demonstrates to the students a practical inquiry process, prob-
lem solutions, different points of view and how to reflect on
their own design process. Finally, the instructor conveys to
the student a specific language about designing. After critique,
the student must objectively assimilate instructors’ comments,
examine and study their model more closely. In the following
studio sessions, the instructor will then review the work of
the student and recommend further modifications until the
project is over [23,21].
3.1.2. Peer critique
These are crits run by the group of students whose instructors
serve as facilitators. The student group is usually split into
smaller groups and criticizes the work of those in their own
or other groups. In order to critique them, students should
be given the agreed criteria. The peer critique adds a social
dimension of the studio, and the opportunity to work together
and communicate, to promote learning [6].
Peer critique is held during the creative decision-making
phase with its components of the design process stages (inter-
pretation, schematic design). Where Learners can reflect on the
work produced by other students at the same levels and can
express their views and evaluate the quality of their work.
Thus, the peer critique process allowing them to evaluate their
own learning. Studies suggest that this feedback provided dur-
ing peer reviews can help, but the guidance and orchestration
of the instructor are necessary to be meaningful. Peer assess-
ment activities can aim for learning or intend to validate learn-
ing by a summative assessment. Learning-oriented peer
critique activities strengthen a mutual benefit relationship
between the student when students’ learning travels in two
directions between the assessing individual(s) and the individ-
ual(s) being assessed [17].
3.1.3. Group critique (Expert Critiques)
It is the commonest way of critique sessions. One or more
instructors participate in a tribunal for a group of students.
Students can see that instructors have various perspectives
and can seem contradictory positions and disputes among crit-
Overview on the criticism process in architecture pedagogy
ical instructors. This is important as there is not only one real
way to show it [20].
Various studies demonstrate the merits of the group cri-
tique. For example, Oh [21] argues that group critics are par-
ticularly suitable for introductory design studios. It is
important for the minimal design experience’ students since
students are exposed to several solutions to the same problem.
So, it is used as a supportive tool with disk critique in the
stages of the information-gathering, and interpretation. And
it is used as a main tool schematic design stage. Group critique
tends to engage beginning students who are not willing to talk
in a wider and more public session in contrast with larger
reviews. Due to the small group size and the relaxed atmo-
sphere, students will engage more actively in the discussion.
3.1.4. Interim critique
The interim critiques allow students to improve their work.
They are oral representations of a project when students show
their tools on a wall and receive instructor comments. In some
instances, interim critiques may be more public where the
instructor and peers can give feedback to the students. In
interim critiques, students explain what they have done and
share their ideas. Interim critiques are less informal than final
juries; feedback, rather than evaluation, is the goal. For this
reason, the comments are more constructive [12].
Instructors carry out interim reviews when they think that
all students can share their progress and knowledge or when
the instructor sees that many students face similar problems
or opportunities in their designs. The first interim examina-
tion often takes place after students have analyzed the build-
ing site. Another common time to conduct an interim review
is when students prepare for their final examination at the
end of the course. Other students listen to the comment made
by the instructor and offer their own comments during
interim reviews whilst one student’s work is being denounced
[21].
3.1.5. Final critique (Jury System)
In the jury system, one student or a group of students present/
defend their work in front of the jury and get feedback/criti-
cism. The jury is the most performing stage of education where
student and instructors actually interact. It carries out both the
assessment and education of students jointly [10].
At the formal final review, students will present their draw-
ings and physical model when the jury moves from student to
student and publicly comment on each work Jurors are occa-
sionally asked to fill in an evaluation form for every student
and provide the student with it later in addition to his / her
performance evaluation over the course by the studio instruc-
tors. The juror dialogue provides students with the opportu-
nity to listen to the challenging, inspiring dialogue and to
observe the skills of the professionals. Thus, Students can learn
the predominant architectural and professional culture.
Despite its unquestionable value, the so-called ‘‘mastery syn-
drome” often surrounds the formal review. The term ‘‘mastery
syndrome” refers to criticism’s tending to use sophisticated
words that convey an aura of mystery to show their expertise
in architecture. This trend can confuse students and make it
harder for them to understand the discussion and comments
of professionals. This conversation may intimidate students
as furthermore criticism of formal reviews. Thus, the interac-
757
tion between jury and students can thus become hostile or con-
tradictory [21].
3.1.6. Panel discussion
The panel discussion is executed by discussing the projects
which are randomly or deliberately selected from instructors
without having knowledge of their students it belongs to.
These discussions are effective learning media, which take
place in a participatory environment. This format gives stu-
dents feedback indirectly and prevents the critic from being
personally taken. The panel discussion is preferred in the first
phase of the design process (analytical understanding). The
function of this type of review has a particularly important
at the start of design learning since the aim of the design studio
is not only to experience the design but to provide basic termi-
nology and new design ideas [10].
3.1.7. Public critique
Where the instructor invites the industry or other department
professionals are part of the panel discussion. Students can
take external experience and feedback from an external per-
spective about the technical, structural, environmental
issues. . ... . ...etc.
It is a dynamic conversation, an active dialogical relation-
ship that needs to be maintained by all parties involved; cri-
tique should work similar to a tennis match, where both
parties ask questions, listen carefully to the response, build
on that response and ask further questions. To achieve the
greatest possible benefit from the presence of external experts
[20].
4. Integrating critique sessions into design process stages
Each student has a way of understanding critiques, attitude
toward different critique techniques, what the student has
experienced from the critiques and how different critique tech-
niques affect his or her success, become key questions for
design studios [12].
Based on previous discussion and literature, the table (1) is
concluded, w determines the optimal type of critique sessions
at each stage of the design process. It is possible to apply more
than one method of critique during one phase because the
stage can take more than a week depending on the nature of
the project, stage, the extent of the response of students, and
the development of their work.
In the exploration stage, the main types of critique sessions
that should be used are individual critique and panel discus-
sion. In the information gathering and analysis stage, the main
types of critique sessions that should be used are individual cri-
tique and panel discussion, supported by group critique ses-
sions. In the interpretation stage, the main types of critique
sessions that should be used is individual critique, supported
by group critique, peer critique and public critique. In the sche-
matic design stage, the main types of critique sessions that
should be used are individual critique and group critique, sup-
ported by peer critique, panel discussion and public critique.
Noting that the critique session which was marked with an
asterisk (*) is the most important session of criticism applied in
the corresponding phase. The critique session which was given
a (/) mark is a critique session that helps in forming the stu-
758 M. Abd El-Latif et al.

Table 1 The theoretical model for applying the appropriate critique session for each stage of the design process.
Critique sessions types Individual Peer Group Interim Final Panel Public
The architectural design process critique critique critique critique critique discussion critique
(jury
system)
Analytical Exploration Assignment delivery * *
understanding Presentation * *
Sensitization * *
Definition of issues * *
Info. Standards revisions * U *
gathering and Site analysis * U *
analysis Case study and analysis * U *
creative Interpretation Personalizing the program * U U
decision Development of design * U U U
making imperatives
End of interpretation stage * U
Schematic Alternative concepts * U * U
design Concept selection * U * U
Transform the concept into * U * U U
two- and three-dimensional
scale designs
Develop the two- and three- * U * U U U
dimensional scale designs
End schematic design stage * U U
Final design *

dent’s thinking and clarifying the requirements of the corre-
sponding stage Table 1.
5. Case study (application and discussion of integrating critique
sessions into design process stages)
critique sessions and their degree of effectiveness. The results
show that there is almost consensus that the design process fol-
lowed within the design studio is in a reconcile with the one
discussed earlier in this paper (the results show that 17.1%
of students see the already followed design process is identical
and 82.9% see it as almost identical to the theoretical model).

The second year’s design studio at the Department of Archi-
tecture, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, is con-
sidered as the case for this study. The design studio is spread
along two days with 8 h of direct contact between students
and professors and extended times of collaboration between
students and assistants and among the students themselves.
The number of students enrolled in this studio is 81divided
into five groups each of 16 students under the supervision of
a professor and a teaching assistant. The professors were free
to follow any of the wide spectrums of critique techniques
along the design process. A random sample of 35 students
has answered a questionnaire. It was prepared to get student’s
feedback about the appropriateness of critique sessions they
have along the followed design process regarding their point
of view. The questionnaire is divided into three main sections.
Meanwhile the first investigates the type of critique used in
each of the followed design processes; the second asks students
-regarding their point of view- to figure out the degree to which
these critique sessions helped them to develop their design
interventions along the design process. Likert scale is used to
record student’s evaluation to the appropriateness of critique
sessions. The scale used consists of five levels where 1 is the
least suitable and 5 is the most suitable (the results are shown
in Table 2. The last part of the questionnaire is open-ended
questions asking students their feedback about design studio
related concerns e.g. The followed design process, the type of
6. Results and analysis
6.1. Reading the results show that:
- Concerning ‘analytical understanding’, this phase consists
of 2 main stages; ‘exploration’ and ‘information gathering
and analysis’. The results show that ‘individual critique’ fol-
lowed by ‘group critique’ is the most practised methods
during the ‘exploration stage’ compared to other types of
critique practised during all steps of the already followed
design process. One of the features to be recorded in this
stage is the high degree of appreciation that the ‘panel dis-
cussion technique’ has obtained. Meanwhile only (14.3%)
of the sample have already experienced this technique,
almost (60%) of them agreed that it is an appropriate
and useful method. Results concerning ‘peer critique’ are
neglected on the subject of their insignificance.
Regarding the ‘information gathering and analysis stage’,
the results are as the same as the ‘exploration’ stage. They rep-
resent ‘individual critique’ and ‘group critique’ as the most
practised methods compared to other types of critique. How-
ever, the ‘case study and analysis’ stage has witnessed a gab
in percentage between the use of these two types of critique.
In addition, and in spite of the low percentage that has used
 Overview on the criticism process in architecture pedagogy
Table 2 Critique session for each stage of the design process and describe the appropriateness of the critique session for the design process stage through a students’ questionnaire
answers. Source: by author.
Critique sessions types Individual critique Peer critique Group critique Interim critique Final critique Panel discussion Public
The architectural design process (jury system) Critique
1 2 3 4 5 123 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 123 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Analytical Exploration Assignment delivery 48.6% 8.6% 28.6% – – 14.3% –
understanding 2.9 14.3 17.1 11.4 2.9 ––– 2.9 5.7 – – 14.3 11.4 2.9 – – – – – – –– – – 2.9 – 2.9 5.7 2.9 –
Presentation 48.6% 8.6% 28.6% – – 14.3% –
2.9 14.3 17.1 11.4 2.9 ––– 2.9 5.7 – – 14.3 11.4 2.9 – – – – – – –– – – 2.9 – 2.9 5.7 2.9 –
Sensitization 48.6% 8.6% 28.6% – – 14.3% –
2.9 14.3 17.1 11.4 2.9 ––– 2.9 5.7 – – 14.3 11.4 2.9 – – – – – – –– – – 2.9 – 2.9 5.7 2.9 –
Definition of issues 48.6% 8.6% 28.6% – – 14.3% –
2.9 14.3 17.1 11.4 2.9 ––– 2.9 5.7 – – 14.3 11.4 2.9 – – – – – – –– – – 2.9 – 2.9 5.7 2.9 –
Info. gathering Standards revisions 45.7% 5.7% 40% – – 8.6% –
and analysis – 11.4 14.3 14.3 5.7 ––– 5.7 – – 11.4 8.5 14.3 5.7 – – – – – – –– – – – – – 2.9 5.7 –
Site analysis 45.7% 5.7% 40% – – 8.6% –
– 11.4 14.3 14.3 5.7 ––– 5.7 – – 11.4 8.5 14.3 5.7 – – – – – – –– – – – – – 2.9 5.7 –
Case study and analysis 62.9% 8.6% 11.4% – – 17.1% –
11.4 8.5 17.1 17.1 8.5 – – 2.9 2.9 2.9 – 2.9 2.9 5.7 – – – – – – – –– – – – 2.9 – 11.4 2.9 –
Creative Interpretation Personalizing the program 62.9% – 25.7% 8.6% – – –
decision 5.7 – 22.8 14.3 20 ––– – – 2.9 2.9 – 14.3 5.7 – – – 8.6 – – – – – – – – – – – –
making Development of design imperatives 62.9% 5.7% 11.4% 20% – – –
– 5.7 22.8 17.1 17.1 ––– 5.7 – – – 2.9 8.5 – 2.9 – 8.5 5.7 2.9 – – – – – – – – – – –
Schematic Alternative concepts 40% 2.9% 40% 14.3% – 2.9% –
design – 5.7 14.3 8.5 11.4 ––– 2.9 – – 2.8 14.3 14.3 8.5 – – 8.5 5.7 – – – – – – – – – – 2.9 –
Concept selection 62.9% 2.9% 17.1% 17.1% – – –
– 8.5 11.4 22.8 17.1 ––– 2.9 – – 2.8 5.7 8.5 – 5.7 2.9 2.9 – 5.7 – – – – – – – – – – –
Transform the concept into two- and 57.1% 2.9% 8.6% 28.6% – 2.9% –
three-dimensional scale designs 2.9 8.5 11.4 14.3 20 ––– – 2.9 – – – 5.7 2.9 8.3 – 8.3 8.3 2.8 – – – – – – – – 2.9 – –
Develop the two- and three- 54.3% 2.9% 5.7% 25.7% – 11.4% –
dimensional scale designs 2.8 5.7 14.3 20 11.4 ––– 2.9 – – – – 5.7 – 5.7 – 2.9 14.3 – – – – – – – – – – 11.4 –
Final design 31.4% – 5.7% 25.7% 31.4% 5.7% –
– 5.7 8.5 8.5 8.5 ––– – – – – – 2.9 2.9 17.1. – 5.7 2.9 – – – 5.7 20 5.7 – – – – 5.7 –

759
760 M. Abd El-Latif et al.

Table 3 Which type of critique sessions was the most suitable to practice at each stage of the design process within the architectural
design studio, through what has actually been inside the design studio of the case study.
Critique sessions types Individual Peer Group interim Final Panel Public
The architectural design process critique critique critique critique critique discussion critique
(jury
system)
Analytical Exploration Assignment delivery * * U
understanding Presentation * * U
Sensitization * * U
Definition of issues * * U
INFO. Standards revisions * * U
Gathering Site analysis * * U
and analysis Case study and analysis * U
Creative Interpretation Personalizing the program * U
decision Development of design * U
making imperatives
Schematic Alternative concepts * *
design Concept selection * U
Transform the concept into * U
two- and three-dimensional
scale designs
Develop the two- and three- * U U
dimensional scale designs
Final design U *

the ‘panel discussion’ technique only (17.1%), they have
asserted that it is an appropriate and useful method. Results
concerning ‘peer critique’ are neglected on the subject of their
insignificance.
- Concerning ‘creative decision making’, this phase consists
of 2 main stages; ‘interpretation’ and ‘schematic design’.
The results show that ‘individual critique’ is the most
dominant critique method in all of these two stages. Mean-
while, the ‘group critique’ comes second in the stage of ‘per-
sonalizing the program’; the ‘interim critique’ comes at the
second place as the most used critique method in the step of
‘developing design imperatives’.
Regarding the ‘schematic design’ stage, the results show
that ‘individual critique’ is the most practiced critique method
along with these phases of the design process except the ‘alter-
native concepts’ stage, where, ‘individual critique’ and ‘group
critique’ are practiced equally. However, ‘interim critique’
stands at second place in all the steps of this stage. In addition,
the ‘final critique’ (jury system) is marked as the most practiced
method in the ‘final design’ stage.
In the ‘exploration stage’ and the ‘information gathering
and analysis’ stage, the main types of critique sessions were ‘in-
dividual critique’ and ‘group critique’ supported by a ‘panel
discussion’ comes at the second place. Except for the step of
a case study and analysis, ‘individual critique’ and ‘panel dis-
cussion’ are the main critique methods used. In the ‘interpreta-
tion stage’, the main type of critique sessions is the ‘individual
critique’, supported by ‘group critique’ and ‘panel discussion’.
In the ‘schematic design’ stage, the main types of critique ses-
sions are ‘individual critique’ and ‘group critique’, supported
by ‘panel discussion’ and ‘interim critique’.
Based on the questionnaire findings and analysis, corre-
lations between the design process already followed in the
second’s year architectural design studio in the Department
of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria Univer-
sity and the types of critique sessions are concluded in a
Table 3.
Noting that the critique session which was marked with an
asterisk (*) is the most important session of criticism applied in
the corresponding phase. The critique session which was given
a (/) mark is a critique session that helps in forming the stu-
dent’s thinking and clarifying the requirements of the corre-
sponding stage.
Comparing the questionnaire results presented in Table 3 to
the theoretical framework - correlating critique sessions to
design process- could be used to shed more light on the appli-
cability constraints of this framework. Actually, the open-
ended questions in the last part of the questionnaire come to
assure these constraints.
The students’ answers come to confirm that:
- The need for the ‘panel discussion’ critique sessions at ear-
lier stages of the design process. This suggestion is based on
their belief that this criticism session would have the poten-
tial to uncover the ambiguity of the design problem state-
ment and eliminate confusion caused by unclear design
requirements and constraints. It is also observed that both
‘peer critique’ and ‘public critique’ were not used consis-
tently at the design studio.
- The use of more public criticism sessions like panel discus-
sion and group critique at earlier stages -where students are
not prepared enough to defend their thoughts individually-
would be more efficient.
- The maturity of a student and his/her ability to defend his/
her ideas and concepts against criticism sessions is a crucial
point in determining the degree of benefit of each of these
sessions.
Overview on the criticism process in architecture pedagogy
7. Conclusion
The importance of critique in architectural pedagogy is unde-
niable. That’s why it became a field of many investigations to
correlate its approaches to education outcomes. Most of these
studies have come to a consensus that critique sessions are one
of the major interactive and indirect educative tools used in the
design studio. It proved its potentials to crystallize more
matured concepts and interventions. Based on analyzing three
prominent approaches used as design processes in the design
studio, the paper utilizes the most comprehensive one as more
appropriate for study investigations. It encompasses four
sequential and cyclic stages: exploration, information-
gathering, interpretation and finally, schematic design. In addi-
tion, it discusses extensively types, prerequisites, and feature
configurations of critique sessions. It determines seven types
as follows: an individual critique (desk critique), peer critique,
group critique (expert crits), interim critique, final critique
(jury system), panel discussion, and finally public critique.
As a theoretical finding to this paper, a framework that cor-
relates different types of critique sessions to stages of the
design process is concluded. This framework shows that:
- Meanwhile, the individual critique is the backbone of the
criticism process, desk critiques are the best technique in
the design studio through all the design process stages.
- In the analytical understanding phase, the main types of
critique sessions are individual critique, group critique
and panel discussion.
- In the interpretation stage, the main type of critique
sessions is individual critique, supported by peer critique,
group critique, panel discussion and public critique.
- In the schematic design stage, the main types of critique
sessions were individual critique and group critique,
supported by peer critique, panel discussion, interim
critique and pubic critique.
However, applying this framework to 2nd-year design stu-
dio shows its customization flexibility to cope with different
design studio configurations e.g. Students’ variations; their
maturity and culture level; project type and difficulty; profes-
sors’ attitudes and visions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] W.A. Abdel-Hameed, architectural form creation in the design
studio: physical modelling as an effective design tool, Int. J.
Arch. Res. (2011) 81–91.
[3] Ashraf M. Salama, a process-oriented design pedagogy:
KFUPM sophomore studio, CEBE Trans. 2 (2) (2005) 16–31.
[4] David Carless, Diane Salter, Min Yang, Joy Lam, Developing
sustainable feedback practices, Stud. Higher Educ. 36 (4) (2011)
395–407, https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449.
[5] R. Coolidge, The architectural process. retrieved from Robert t.
Coolidge, AIA, (2013), architect: http://www.
robertcoolidge.com/process-1.html.
761
[6] David McClean, Neasa Hourigan, Critical dialogue in
architecture studio: peer interaction and feedback, J. Educ.
Built Environ. 8 (1) (2013) 35–57, https://doi.org/
10.11120/jebe.2013.00004.
[7] Ö.O. Demirbasß, The relation of learning styles and performance
scores of the students in interior architecture education (2001).
[9] F. Gerhard, A. Lemke, M. Thomas, M. Anders, the role of
critiquing in cooperative problem-solving, ACM Trans. Inf.
Syst. 9 (1991) 123–151.
[10] R. Ghada, Assessment in architectural design education case
study: first-year students at pharos university, J. Civil Eng.
Arch. (2016) 1015–1026.
[11] C.M. Gray, Democratizing assessment practices through
multimodal critique in the design classroom, Int. J. Technol.
Design Educ. (2018).
[12] Gunday Gul, A. Yasemin, Analysing the effects of critique
techniques on the success of interior architecture students, Int. J.
Art Design Educ. (2018) 470–479.
[13] M. John, C. Shannon, using architecture design studio
pedagogies to enhance engineering education, Int. J. Eng.
Educ. 32 (2016) 364–383.
[14] Jones, J. Christopher, Design methods: seeds of human future,
John Wiley & Sons, inc, New York, 1992.
[15] Sevinç Kurt, An analytic study on the traditional studio
environments and the use of the constructivist studio in the
architectural design education, Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 1 (1)
(2009) 401–408, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.072.
[16] LBBA. (2012, February 6). Caf launches web-based curriculum
for high school students. retrieved from Landon bone baker
architects: https://www.landonbonebaker.com/2012/02/caf-
launches-web-based-curriculum-for-high-school-students/.
[17] C.A. Marriott, Assessment methods and tools for architectural
curricula, ProQuest LLC, Chicago, Illinois, 2012.
[19] U. Nangkula, Badiossadat, U. Ims, Redefining critique methods
as an assessment tool in the architecture design studio
(2010).
[20] U. Nangkula, H. Badiossadat, A. Mohd, I. Adi, Comprehensive
learning of architecture education: understanding critique
session as a learning process and criteria-based assessment in
the architecture design studio, 6th international forum on
engineering education (IFEE 2012). Procedia - social and
behavioural sciences, vol. 102, 2013, pp. 21–32.
[21] Y. Oh, Toward a theory of design critiquing, Carnegie Mellon
University, 2010.
[23] P. Patrick, O. Bruno, Xu Sun, A preliminary comparison of desk
and panel crit settings in the design studio, International
Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education.
Loughborough, UK, 2015.
[25] S. Rachel, P. Rosie, fear and learning in the architectural crit,
Field J. 5 (2012) 101–125.
[26] G. Scagnetti, A dialogical model for studio critiques in design
education, Design J. (2017) s781–s791.
[27] K. Snell, Towards a new paradigm in architectural education,
Sheridan College, 2014.
Further reading
[2] Aderonmu, Peter, Ajilima-Isaac, Omojo, Arinze, Emmanuel,
Etuk, Aniekan, Alagbe, Oluwole, Fulani, Omoyeni, Eyiaro,
Segun (n.d.). Effects of design studio culture on the
performance of architecture students.
[8] J. Dewey, Art as experience. NewYork: Capricorn books, g. p.
Putnam’s sons, New York (1934).
[18] U. Nangkula, H. Badiossadat, Aligning assessment with
learning outcomes. UKM teaching and learning congress
2011, (2011).
762
[22] R. Oxman, Performative design: a performance-based model of
digital architectural design, Environ. Plan. B: Plan. Design 36
(2009) 1026–1037.
[24] P. Pradel, A preliminary comparison of desk and panel
crit settings in the design studio, in: The 17th
international conference on engineering and product
design education: great expectations: design teaching,
research and enterprise, (e&pde 2015). Glasgow: design
society, 2015, pp. 544–550.
M. Abd El-Latif et al.
[28] Y. Oh, M. Gross, E. Do, Computer-aided critiquing systems,
The computer-aided architectural design and research in Asia
(CAADRIA), 2008.
[29] Oh Yeonjoo, D.G. Mark, A constraint-based furniture design
critic, Res. Pract. Technol.-Enhanced Learn. 5 (2010) 97–122.
[30] Yeonjoo Oh, Suguru Ishizaki, Mark D. Gross, Ellen Yi-Luen
Do, A theoretical framework of design critiquing in
architecture studios, Des. Stud. 34 (3) (2013) 302–325, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.004.