Effective Critique Through Affective Peer Engagement

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


The critique in design education is founded on philosophical traditions that have remained embedded in pedagogical practices as a mode for assessing and developing students' ability to communicate processes and ideas. Research, however, indicates that the traditional critique may not always be effective at aligning with or supporting contemporary learning and professional practice. As a discipline, interior design is inherently related to and reliant on interpersonal relationships, collaboration, communication, and empathy, all of which require cognitive skills along with inclusion of the affective domain. While the term “affect” is typically associated with emotional reaction in absence of reason, as a taxonomy of learning it involves social and emotional development through levels of “receiving,” “responding,” “valuing,” “organizing,” and “characterizing.” Building on research related to design critiques and diverse disciplinary perspectives on peer review, we investigated the affective domain of learning as a framework to reconceive critique pedagogies and practices in a fourth-year (40 students) and a first-year (35 students) interior design studio. As a generative and constructive process to engender dynamic conversation as well as active engagement, results revealed enhanced and effective learning outcomes as well as higher levels of skills and attributes essential for active, critical, and engaged professionals. The process also exposed implications for future research and exploration.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)29-45
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of Interior Design
Issue number3
StatePublished - Sep 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Interior Design Educators Council

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Visual Arts and Performing Arts


Dive into the research topics of 'Effective Critique Through Affective Peer Engagement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this