Co-ideation critique unfolded: an exploratory study of a co-design studio ‘crit’ based on the students’ experience

References

• Achten, H., and D. Sims. 2002. “Requirements For Collaborative Design In Architecture.” In 6th Design & Decision Support Systems in Architecture & Urban Planning Conference, edited by H. Timmermans, 1–13. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, R. S., M. Cardella, and Ş. Purzer. 2016. “Analysing Design Review Conversations: Connecting Design Knowing, Being and Coaching.” Design Studies 45: 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Adams, R. S., T. Forin, M. Chua, and D. Radcliffe. 2016. “Characterizing the Work of Coaching during Design Reviews.” Design Studies 45: 30–67.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, R. O. N. 2004. The Digital Design Coach: Enhancing Design Conversations in Architecture Education. New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington.
   Google Scholar
• Bucciarelli, L. L. 1988. “An Ethnographic Perspective on Engineering Design.” Design Studies 9 (3): 159–168.
   Google Scholar
• Cardoso, C., Ö. Eriş, P. Badke-Schaub, and M. Aurisicchio. 2014. “Question Asking In Design Reviews: How Does Inquiry Facilitate The Learning Interaction?” In DTRS 10: Design Thinking Research Symposium 2014, Purdue University, USA. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=dtrs
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 1982. “Designerly Ways of Knowing.” Design Studies 3 (4): 221–227.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 2001. “Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science.” Design Issues 17 (3): 49–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2014. The Systems Model of Creativity. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Cuff, D. 1991. Architecture: The Story of Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Curry, T. 2014. “A Theoretical Basis for Recommending the Use of Design Methodologies as Teaching Strategies in the Design Studio.” Design Studies 35 (6): 632–646.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dannels, D. P., and K. N. Martin. 2008. “Critiquing Critiques: A Genre Analysis of Feedback across Novice to Expert Design Studios.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 22 (2): 135–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darses, F. 1997. “L’ingénierie concourante: Un modèle en meilleure adéquation avec les processus cognitifs de conception.” In Ingénierie concourante: De la technique au social, edited by P. Bossard, C. Chanchevrier, & P. Leclaire, 39–55. Paris: Economica.
   Google Scholar
• Delle Fave, A., F. Massimini, and M. Bassi. 2011. “Cross-Cultural Advancements in Positive Psychology.” In Psychological Selection and Optimal Experience Across Cultures, edited by A. Delle Fave, Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Dorta, T. 2007. “Implementing and Assessing the Hybrid Ideation Space: a Cognitive Artifact for Conceptual Design.” International Journal of Design Sciences and Technology 14 (2): 119–133.
   Google Scholar
• Dorta, T., E. Pérez, and A. Lesage. 2008. “The Ideation Gap: Hybrid Tools, Design Flow and Practice.” Design Studies 29 (2): 121–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorta, T., G. Kinayoglu, and M. Hoffmann. 2016. “Hyve-3d and the 3d Cursor: Architectural co-design with freedom in Virtual Reality.” International Journal of Architectural Computing 14 (2): 87–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorta, T., G. Kinayoglu, and S. Boudhraâ. 2016. “A New Representational Ecosystem for Design Teaching in the Studio.” Design Studies 47: 164–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorta, T., Y. Kalay, A. Lesage, and E. Pérez. 2011. “Elements of Design Conversation in the Interconnected HIS. Technology.” International Journal of Design Sciences and Technology 18 (2): 65–80.
   Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K. A., and H. A. Simon. 1993. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Esnault, L., R. Zeiliger, and F. Vermeulin. 2006. “On the Use of Actor-Network Theory for Developing Web Services Dedicated to Communities of Practice.” Practice 298–306.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, J., H. Christiaans, and R. Almendra. 2016. “A Visual Tool for Analysing Teacher and Student Interactions in A Design Studio Setting.” CoDesign 12 (1–2): 112–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffin, K., and U. Koners. 2011. “Tacit Knowledge, Lessons Learnt, and New Product Development.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 28 (2): 300–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. 2002. ““One-On-One”: A Pedagogic Base for Design Instruction in the Studio.” In Proceedings of Common Ground, Design Research Society International Conference, 430–437. Stoke-on-Trent: Staffordshire University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G., H. Hochman, and I. Dafni. 2010. “The Design Studio “Crit”: Teacher–Student Communication.” Ai Edam 24 (3): 285–302.
   Google Scholar
• Gross, M. D., and E. Do. 1997. “The Design Studio Approach: Learning Design In Architecture Education.” Paper presented at the Design Education Workshop, EduTech/NSF, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, September 8–9.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. A., P. R. Thomas, H. W. Marsh, and C. J. Smethurst. 2001. “Relationships between Flow, Self-Concept, Psychological Skills, and Performance.” Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 13 (2): 129–153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonson, B. 2005. “Design Ideation: The Conceptual Sketch in the Digital Age.” Design Studies 26 (6): 613–624.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent, L. A. 2002. “The Case of Lucio Pozzi: An Artist/Teacher’s Studio Critique Method. Teachers College.” PhD., Columbia University, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinsmann, M., and R. Valkenburg. 2008. “Barriers and Enablers for Creating Shared Understanding in Co-Design Projects.” Design Studies 29 (4): 369–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, S. 2001. “Learning from the Architecture Studio: Implications for Project-Based Pedagogy.” International Journal of Engineering Education 17 (4/5): 349–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvan, T. 2000. “Collaborative Design: What Is It?” Automation in Construction 9 (4): 409–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lave, J. 1996. “Teaching, as Learning, in Practice.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 3 (3): 149–164.
   Google Scholar
• Ledewitz, S. 1985. “Models of Design in Studio Teaching.” Journal of Architectural Education 38 (2): 2–8.
   Google Scholar
• Massimini, F., and M. Carli. 1988. “The Systematic Assessment of Flow in Daily Experience.” In Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness, edited by M. Csikszentmihalyi and I. S. Csikszentmihalyi, 266–287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McDonnell, J. 2016. “Scaffolding Practices: A Study of Design Practitioner Engagement in Design Education.” Design Studies 45: 9–29.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. J., and S. Pilling. 2000. “Architectural Education and the Profession: Preparing for the Future.” In Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism, edited by D. J. Nicol and S. Pilling, 1–26. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Oh, Y., S. Ishizaki, M. D. Gross, and E. Y.-L. Do. 2013. “A Theoretical Framework of Design Critiquing in Architecture Studios.” Design Studies 34 (3): 302–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxman, R. 2001. “The Mind in Design: A Conceptual Framework for Cognition in Design Education.” In Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, edited by C. Eastman, W. M. McCraken, & W. Newsletter, 269–295. Oxford: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Ro, Y. K., Y. M. Guo, and B. D. Klein. 2018. “The Case of Flow and Learning Revisited.” Journal of Education for Business 93 (3): 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1): 54–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Safin, S., T. Dorta, D. Pierini, G. Kinayoglu, and A. Lesage. 2016. “Design Flow 2.0, Assessing Experience during Ideation with Increased Granularity: A Proposed Method.” Design Studies 47: 23–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. 1985. The Design Studio: An Exploration of Its Traditions and Potentials. London: Riba Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sprague, J. 1991. “Reading Our Own Speech Critiques as Texts that Reveal Educational Goals, Instructional Roles and Communicative Functions.” Basic Communication Course Annual 3 (1): Article 17.
   Google Scholar
• Steen, M. 2013. “Co-Design as a Process of Joint Inquiry and Imagination.” Design Issues 29 (2): 16–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steen, M., M. Manschot, and N. De Koning. 2011. “Benefits of Co-Design in Service Design Projects.” International Journal of Design 5 (2): 53–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uluoǧlu, B. 2000. “Design Knowledge Communicated in Studio Critiques.” Design Studies 21 (1): 33–58.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, E., E. Boshuizen, J. Van Merriënboer, T. Asselbergs, and M. Van Dorst. 2014. “Making Explicit in Design Education: Generic Elements in The Design Process.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 24 (1): 53–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vowles, H. 2005. “The ‘Crit’as a Ritualised Legitimation Procedure in Architectural Education.” In Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism,  edited by D. Nicol and S. Pilling, 259–64. London: E. and F.N. Spon.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, T. 2010. “A New Paradigm for Design Studio Education.” International Journal of Art & Design Education 29 (2): 173–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkin, M. 2000. “Reviewing the Review: An Account of a Research Investigation of the ‘Crit’.” In Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism, edited by D. Nicol and S. Pilling, 100–107. New York: Taylor & Francis; Spon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yanar, A. 2007. “Knowledge, Skills, and Indoctrination in Studio Pedagogy”. In Design Studio Pedagogy: Horizons for the Future, edited by M. Dans Salama and N. Et Wilkinson, 63–73. Gateshead, UK: Urban International Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yilmaz, S., and S. R. Daly. 2016. “Feedback in Concept Development: Comparing Design Disciplines.” Design Studies 45: 137–158.
   Google Scholar