Engendering a culture of the critical review (or the crit)

Peer feedback is part of a general move away from "an emphasis on marking as the main assessing activity to managing and organising a complex process" (Brew paraphrasing Boud 1995 in Brown and Glasner 1999). Brew (1999) argues that, "assessment tasks must be authentic in that they must relate to the actual tasks students will undertake in their professional practice and to the relationships of peer evaluation and feedback which exist in the workplace …" (Brew 1999, p164). The Crit is a good example of a type of peer feedback which meets such specifications. The following description is based on interview with Michelle Pepin, Learning and Teaching Coordinator for School of ADBE

The Crit (or "critical review", also known as a jury) is a type of formative or sometimes summative feedback which occurs largely but not exclusively in design-based, project-based subjects (for example, art and design subjects, architecture, interior design, construction, real estate and product design).

The Crit which simulates the professional practice of a design office involves groups of generally 10-12 students presenting their works-in-progress and receiving comment from staff and student peers. External professionals also sometimes attend to offer comment. A Crit may involve a formal presentation or an informal chat around a table. Sometimes Crits will be informal at the initial stage of a project then formal at the intermediary and final stages of a project (Parnell and Sara 2007). In Architecture, Crits are often called "Pin Ups" as they involved students literally pinning up pieces of work on walls for staff and other students to view. Each student in turn discusses their work and other students comment. There are different practices for participants to comment, e.g. verbal, standard written feedback forms and post-it notes.

Where standard feedback forms are used the usual practice is that one student is nominated to record any verbal comments made relating to the work of another student who is being judged onto the feedback form then students swap roles so that each student takes a turn presenting or recording feedback. At the end of the session the tutor signs off each feedback form and returns them to the respective students, sometimes adding additional comments of their own.

In some cases Crits take place with no tutor present, allowing students to lead the activity. Crits generally take place during tutorials. Tutorials occur weekly and might involve Crits every other week, some formal some less formal. Less formal Crits provide the opportunity for discussion of student work regardless of the current level of progression or completion of the piece of work being presented. Formal Crits or pin-up days provide a more formal checks and balances point with stricter requirements about the type of work to be shown.

The Crit is transferable to disciplines outside design-based subjects where there is a presentation requirement; I.e. Crits might provide the opportunity for formative or even summative feedback on written assignments, essays, reports, dissertations, oral presentations, posters etc.

As with any other form of group learning the interpersonal dynamics of the given group of students will need to be considered and managed prior to and during the activity to ensure a good level of engagement.

Key features of the Crit:

Parnell and Sara (2007) argue that in the best case scenario a Crit will provide the following learning opportunities:

• a chance to evaluate work - both student self evaluation of progress and tutor evaluation of the general success of the programme
• provision of feedback - on strengths, weaknesses, successes and missed opportunities
• fulfilment and clarification of project objectives - a chance for students to demonstrate their fulfilment of course objectives and to solidify their understanding of their own objectives
• practise for practice - enhancement of presentation, listening, critical thinking and "marketing" (both of ideas and of products) skills
• safe environment - a formative test site in authentic conditions
• development of critical awareness - involvement in discussion and consideration of different ideas and approaches leads to enhanced critical awareness
• learning from everyone - an opportunity for different perspectives particularly where attendees come from different contexts, e.g. peers, staff, professionals
• deadlines - the opportunity for formative feedback can provide the impetus to stick to deadlines and the occasion of a final review allows for a celebration of task completion
• personal development planning - opportunity to reflect on wider progress, achievement and direction in your field, discipline.

(paraphrased from Parnell and Sara 2007)

Parnell and Sara give additional detailed information on the roles of tutors and students within a Crit and advice for students on preparing for, participating in and learning from a Crit (see Parnell and Sara 2007). For examples of good practice as well as staff and student development tools see "Critiquing the Crit", a project by the Art Design and Media HEA Subject Centre which explored the value of the "Crit" as a learning and teaching method. For a humorous look at how not to facilitate a Crit and what not to say to students see the Mirage Studio Seven blog

Alternative formats of Crit

It could be argued that all disciplines are creative in some sense as all include a creation and re-creation of knowledge. The key features of the Crit (outlined in the previous section) illustrate the relevance of peer feedback practices to the development of NTU graduate attributes. In this way the practice is of relevance to all disciplines albeit different forms of peer feedback will be of more or less relevance depending on the discipline and type of assessment used.

Parnell and Sara (2007) give some alternatives to the usual Crit format and some of these may be more applicable to other disciplines:

• Student-led crit - to develop critical skills, team-working and communication. This might take place without tutors present or with tutors adopting the role of facilitator but not giving feedback.
• Role-play crit - to view the work through the eyes of people outside the discipline leading to greater understanding of different viewpoints. Members of the audience adopt the views of other stakeholders (for example, clients, the general public).
• Introduce real clients and users - for authenticity and to broaden the debate to include issues relevant to people outside the discipline.
• Make someone else do the work - the student briefs another student on their work and asks them to present it. Encourages clarification of ideas so that somebody can understand and present them and mirrors professional practice where employees/employers may present each others work.
• Closed Crit - projects are presented without the creator present necessitating that the work should be clear enough to "speak for itself".
• Exhibition Crit - as with the closed review the work should speak for itself however the creator is present to speak with any attendees which might include tutors, students from other year groups and professionals. Attendees are free to wander around the exhibition and speak with other attendees to generate broad discussion.
• Hands-free Crit - to test whether a representation communicates the creators ideas effectively work is displayed with no verbal presentation and presenters compare their intentions with the responses of the reviewers
• Meeting Crit - for groups of up to five students. Each student presents their ideas for two to three minutes and raises the issue they want to discuss. Issues are then put in priority order and discussed.
• Reverse Crit - local practitioners or students from different years are invited to present their work to tutors and students to enhance critical skills without the pressure of presenting and to encourage appreciation of the differences between academic and practice-based work

Parnell and Sara (2007) note that Crits can be conducted using a variety of media, including:

• models only, brochure format
• lectures
• ICT presentations (e.g. PowerPoint)
• video-conferencing and the web (for example online forums, blogs, picture-sharing websites).

Race (Brown 1998) gives some examples of work which particularly lend themselves to peer feedback in a Crit or other setting.

1. Presentations - please see see HEA case study on summative peer feedback on group presentations in the Business School at Westminster Kingsway College
2. Reports
3. Essay plans - see NTU case study on peer feedback following presentation on research proposal from MSc Research Methods (also see case study from the University of St Andrews on peer feedback for essay writing - case study six of the document)
4. Calculations
5. Interviews
6. Annotated bibliographies - see HEA case study on summative peer assessment at Centre for Sport, Dance and Outdoor Education at Liverpool John Moores University
7. Practical work - see HEA case study of cross-year summative peer assessment to evaluate a clinical placement module on the Middlesex University Sport Rehabilitation
8. Poster displays - see NTU case study of a formative exhibition Crit in "Reading gender and sexuality" in the School of Arts and Humanities 
9. Portfolios - see HEA case study presentation on using an eportfolio for formative peer feedback in the School of Medicine at the University of St Andrews
10. Exhibitions
11. Artefacts
12. Group projects - see NTU case study on group presentations for Cresswell Crags field trip in the School of Science and Technology, HEA case study of summative peer assessment of group work in School of Service Management at University of Brighton and HEA case study of summative self and peer assessment of group work in School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure at the University of Wolverhampton
13. Written exams
14. Dissertations

The last three examples are from Donaldson and Topping (1996) who suggest a further three examples of peer feedback work which could be done in a Crit or other setting. In their pamphlet on promoting peer assisted learning, Donaldson and Topping (1996) provide exemplar assessment criteria checklists as well as checklists for transferable skills, which could be adapted to focus on the NTU graduate attributes.

References

• Boud., Anderson, G., Cohen, R. and Sampson, J. (1997) Developing assessment for peer learning. Research and Development in Higher Education, 20, 117-25.
• Brew, A. (1999) Towards autonomous assessment: using self-assessment and peer assessment, in S. Brown and A. Glasner (eds) Assessment matters in Higher Education: choosing and using diverse approaches, Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Educaiton & Open University Press.
• Brockbank A. and McGill, I. (1998) Facilitating reflective learning in Higher Education, Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
• Parnell, R. and Sara, R. (2007) The Crit: an architecture student"s handbook. London: Elsevier ltd.
• Race, P. (1999) Why assess innovatively? in S. Brown and A. Glasner (eds) Assessment Matters in Higher Education: choosing and using diverse approaches, Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
• Donaldson, A.J.M. and Topping, K.J. (1996) Promoting peer assisted learning amongst students in higher and further education (SEDA Paper 96). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association