| In schools of architecture, students spend much time working in different kinds of design-projects. At the end of a course, students and their projects are regularly evaluated. Reflecting the project based structure of the education — as well as the complexity and multifaceted nature of the domain — assessments normally are done in the form of what is variously called design reviews, juries, or critiques. These activities typically begin with students presenting their projects to an audience of staff members, professional architects, and peers. After the presentation, staff members and invited professionals comment, criticize, and discuss the students’ work. Given this format, design reviews have both summative and formative functions. On the one hand, the activities provide assessments on students and their projects. On the other hand, they are instructional activities, aimed at the learning and development of disciplinary skills—both of the students responsible for the project and the peers acting as an audience to the critique. Drawing from a material of 159 video recorded critique sessions — and building on previous studies of talk-in-interaction (particulary research on advice giving, assessment, accountability, and displays of stance and alignment) — this study provides a single case analysis of an episode where two critics discuss the project of a group of students. In the analysis, three interrelated points are raised and discussed: how the critique can be seen as a “hybrid activity,” involving elements of both lecturing and assessment, and requiring students and critics to constantly negotiate aims, relevancies, and responsibilities; the multiple semiotic resources employed in that work; and, the inherent difficulties facing students when they are to respond, as the subtle and rapid shifts between assessment and lecturing creates ambiguities in what the relevant next action is at any given point in time. |
