Contextual Background:
We have been having a conversations within my course team about the idea of the ‘Crit’. Should we be using this word? Does it accurately describe the sessions we are using it for? What is the student perception of this word?
We currently use if to describe the formative assessment points within each unit, but not the summative point.
As I teach Year 1 undergraduates, we have been encountering fear and apprehension around their first ‘Crit’. This is the formative assessment point, mid-way through their second unit and lands in the last week before winter break.
Evaluation:
UAL is committed to Critique as a valuable and established process for learning within creative subjects. (UAL, 2024)
Therefore, we should continue to use this word – what needs focus is how we accurately describe what these sessions are and how we mange the student perception of this.
On reflection, I have realised that we do not provide any resources to define what we mean by ‘Crit’. In the slides from class the week before their first crit (Appendix 1), we describe the structure of the session and tell the students what to bring, but we do not explicitly define its purpose. We do this in class verbally, but the lack of anything concrete for the students to refer to means they are more heavily relying on their own preconceptions.
Moving forwards:
From talking to my colleagues and reflecting on my own education, I have realised that the way we define the ‘Crit’ differs between institutions, courses and even pathways on the same course. Therefore, it is important to define our expectations of each session.
‘Critique is a collaborative activity that takes quite a bit of time to learn — both in terms of how to give feedback, and how to accept feedback’ (Goldstien, 2026), therefore we must build this progression into our crits throughout the course of a 3-year undergraduate degree. In the context of a students’ first crit, they ‘need a more comfortable and ‘safe’ place to learn to discuss and relate to their work openly’ (Rowels, 2013).
One description that resonated with me is that ‘a good crit is actually a conversation’ (Rowels, 2013). This highlights the principal that a crit is based around discussion, but removes some of the tensions around giving judgement. It is a space to reflect on work and think about way to develop it further – ‘an opportunity to learn from the work and perspectives of others, to develop skills in reading and talking about artwork […] and in many ways help people prepare for life after art school’ (Rowels, 2013).
Actions:
- Work with teaching team to create progressive definitions of ‘Crit’ for different Formative Assessment points throughout the course.
- Add lighter, peer based ‘Reflective Crit’ to students first unit. I think the idea of ‘The Reflective Interview Crit’ (Appendix 2) will encourage peer feedback and give students an idea of what to expect later in the course.
References:
ROWEL, S (2013). Art Crits: 20 Questions – A Pocket Guide. London: Q-Art.
UAL (2024). Supporting inclusive and developmental crits: a guidance for staff at UAL. London: UAL and Arts Student Union.
GOLDSTEIN, M (2026). The Purpose of Critique. Available at: https://howtocrit.com/index.html. (Accessed on 18th March 2026).
Appendix 1 – D&R Crit Slides from Sample Room Week 4.
Appendix 2 – The Reflective Interview Crit.
[Further reading that informed my thought process but was not directly quoted in Case Study 3.]
UAL (2026). Compassionate Feedback: Ideas for Promoting reflection on compassionate approaches to feedback. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/381364/Compassionate-feedback-prompts_Final_November-2022-3.pdf. (Accessed on 18th March 2026).
UNKNOWN (2026). Creative Tutorials Booklet. Provided by Rachel Marsden, 2026.