Idea-Building

Descriptive statistics, ethnography as well as multiple regression analysis were employed:

Regression analysis is widely used for prediction and forecasting. It is a statistical process for estimating the relationships among variables. It includes many techniques for modeling and analyzing several variables, when the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables (or 'predictors').

Idea-Building:

Our observations indicate that idea-building is strongly associated with productive and collaborative jury environments, in which jurors allow most ideas a fair hearing, sincerely question the students' understanding of their designs and the process of designing, build on one another's comments, and the student's initial intentions provide the starting point for juror dialogue.

Intercorrelation Matrix:

IB REAL ISSUEF ISP

IB 1.000

REAL 0.604 1.000

ISSUEF -.401 -.435 1.000

ISP -.475 -.395 .234 1.000

We have consistently observed real questioning as a prelude to collaborative idea-building. The strong (r=.604) coefficient reinforces this observation. The ISP variable showed a moderate negative correlation with idea-building, (-.475). This corroborates our observations that interruptions to student presentations appear to disrupt the collaborative idea-building process in juries. The negative correlations between REAL and both the ISP and the ISSUEF variables (-.395 and -.435 respectively), suggest that the disrespectful attitude that allows numerous interruptions of the student, and also allows juror commentary to focus on only one or two issues, does not encourage sincere inquiry of the student. The negative correlation between the IB and ISSUEF variables (-.401) supports our observations that issue-focusing appears to be associated with negative commentary where juror energy is spent in criticizing / judging and not in building ideas.

Selection:

We hypothesize that the dependent variable idea-building (IB) could be predicted by a regression equation which includes the following variables:

REAL: the number of genuine, non-rhetorical, non-functional questions asked of the student presenter, by the jurors, during one jury, (positive association with idea-building IB).

ISP: the number of times jurors interrupt the initial student verbal presentation, (inverse association with IB).

ISSUEF: indicates whether a jury has discussed fewer than three central issues during any one jury, (inverse association with IB).

Procedures:

We ran a stepwise regression analysis using the following equation:

<IB>=constant+b1ISSUEF+b2REAL+b3ISP

(please note that <IB> = predicted IB).

The strategy was to seek out first, which variable correlated most highly with the outcome variable (IB) and would be selected first, and to rank subsequent variables in descending order of relative contributions to predictability (R²) to the overall equation. The complete results of this regression study are located in Appendix III.

Results:

1) The REAL independent variable was selected first, (correlation r=.604 with the outcome variable), R²=.365 indicating that approximately 37% of the variance in the dependent variable can be explained by variation in the REAL independent variable, and significant P(2 tail)£0.00. 2) The ISP variable was entered second with a r=.656, R²=.431, ΔR²=.066 (contribution to the predictability of the equation), and a significant P(2 tail)£.001. 3) The ISSUEF variable was entered third, with r=.670, R²=.449, ΔR²= .018 (contribution to the predictability of the equation), and a significant P(2 tail)£.062. The null hypotheses were rejected on REAL, ITOTAL, and ISP, as their .90 confidence intervals around coefficients omitted the zero value.¹⁹⁴

Analysis:

The regression analysis confirms our hypothesis concerning the predictive values of the REAL, ISSUEF and ISP variables. The jury atmosphere that tends to idea-build also seems to be associated with genuine inquiry into the student's design intentions. The strong inverse associations between ISSUEF and the IB variable supports our observations of the two antithetical behaviors, one collaborative and additive in nature, and the other constricted and exclusive. The inverse association between IB and the number of interruptions to the student presentation variable (ISP), may be due to the `telling', not `listening', orientation of the jurors.¹⁹⁵

The equation appears to corroborate our observations that a productive `idea-building'-oriented jury process might involve: 1) minimal interruptions to the student's verbal presentation; 2) high incidence of real, non-functional questioning of the student; 3) well-rounded and thoughtful juror feedback oriented toward student-learning, not juror self-expression. An atmosphere where juror energies are focused on collaborative idea-building and not on vying for recognition and the floor.

Juries and Motivation:

Selection:

Productive jury environments which listen carefully, genuinely question students, respectfully convey advisements to the students, and act as a source of information in building ideas are likely to motivate students in positive ways, and avoid alienating them from the review process through humiliation, defensiveness, or anger.¹⁹⁶ We hypothesis that the student's post-jury motivation to engage in subsequent design activities (EMOTC), could be predicted by a regression equation including the following variables:

JURYC: the student's perception of the jury as a source of design information, (positive association with EMOTC).

JURYD: the effect of juror comments on the student's self-esteem, (positive association with EMOTC).

REAL: the number of genuine, non-rhetorical, non-functional questions asked of the student presenter, by the jurors, during one jury, (positive association with EMOTC).

EMOTE: the levels of anger experienced by the student during the jury, (inverse association with EMOTC).

Intercorrelation Matrix:

EMOTC JURYD JURYC REAL EMOTE

EMOTC 1.000

JURYD 0.671 1.000

JURYC 0.613 0.681 1.000

REAL 0.208 0.056 0.160 1.000

EMOTE -.465 -.503 -.231 -.170 1.000

Procedures:

We ran a stepwise regression analysis of the following equation:

<EMOTC>=constant+b1JURYD+b2JURYC+b3REAL+b4EMOTE

(please note that <EMOTC> = predicted EMOTC)

Once again the strategy was to seek out which variable correlated most highly with the outcome variable (EMOTC), and then to rank subsequent variables in descending order of contribution to predictability (R²). The complete results of this regression study are located in Appendix III.

Results:

1) The JURYD independent variable was selected first (correlation r=.671 with the outcome variable EMOTC), R²=.450 (indicating that approximately 45 percent of the variance in the dependent variable is due to JURYD, and significant P(2 tail)£.023. 2) The JURYC variable was entered second with r=.704, R²=.496, ΔR²= .046 (contribution to the predictability of the equation), and a significant P(2 tail)£.030. 3) The REAL variable was entered third with r=.743, R²=.552, ΔR²= .056 (contribution to the predictability of the equation), and a significant P(2 tail)£.053. The null hypotheses were rejected on JURYD, JURYC and REAL, as their .90 confidence intervals around coefficients omitted the zero value. The EMOTE variable was dropped from the equation as an insignificant contributor, P(2 Tail)£.181, (see Appendix III).

Analysis:

Our initial hypothesis concerning the predictive values of the JURYD, JURYC and REAL variables seems confirmed.

Juries are productive if the jury has effectively communicated with the student and engaged him or her in the process as an integral and respected participant through real questioning. To the extent that students must defend their self-esteem, we surmise that they will not be receptive to new ideas and concepts and will view the jury as an ordeal rather than an opportunity. Their motivation to continue design activity within this framework will likely be lessened. Motivated students continue to work within this sort of edifying system when they see that the teachers believe in the system and use it as a relevant educational tool.

In retrospect it was not so surprising that EMOTE was dropped from the equation. This variable is more highly correlated with the JURYD variable than with the dependent variable. This may indicate multicollinearity problems in that these variables may be measuring similar emotional phenomena.

Student Participation in Juries:

Selection:

Student participation in his or her jury is important in helping the jurors to understand each student's design methods and process, knowledge of the material, and progress in learning about design and designing. This participation also develops the student's abilities to articulate, discuss and defend complex design ideas and procedures.¹⁹⁷ We hypothesize that the amount of student verbal participation in the jury (STALK), could be predicted by a regression equation which includes the following variables:

REAL: the number of genuine, non-rhetorical, non-functional questions asked of the student presenter, by the jurors, during one jury, (positive association with STALK).

RHETTOT: the ratio of rhetorical to total questions asked, (inverse association with STALK).

PROTECT: measures the incidence of jurors speaking for the student against another juror's criticism, even when this criticism is `fair', (inverse association with STALK).

ISSUEF: indicates whether a jury has discussed fewer than three central issues during any one jury, (inverse association with STALK).

Intercorrelation Matrix:

STALK REAL RHET. PROT. ISSUEF

STALK 1.000

REAL 0.298 1.000

RHET. -.220 -.292 1.000

PROT. -.303 0.087 0.120 1.000

ISSUEF -.298 -.435 0.408 0.083 1.000

Procedures:

We ran a stepwise regression analysis of the following equation:

<STALK>=a+b1REAL+b2RHETTOT+b3PROTECT+b4ISSUEF

(please note that <STALK> = predicted STALK)

The strategy was to seek out which variable correlated most highly with the outcome variable (STALK), and then to rank subsequent variables in descending order of contribution to predictability (R²). The complete results of this regression study are located in Appendix III.

Results:

1) The PROTECT independent variable was selected first with r=.303 (correlation with the outcome variable STALK), R²=.092 (indicating that approximately 9% of the variance in the dependent variable is due to the REAL independent variable, and significant P(2 tail)£.000. 2) The REAL variable was entered second with r=.445, R²=.198, ΔR²= .106 (contribution to the predictability of the equation), and a significant P(2 tail)£.009. 3) The ISSUEF variable was entered third with r=.467, R²=.218, ΔR²= .020 (contribution to the predictability of the equation), and a significant P(2 tail)£.094. The null hypotheses were rejected on PROTECT, REAL and ISSUEF, as their .90 confidence intervals around coefficients omitted the zero value, (see Appendix III). The RHETTOT variable was dropped from the equation as an insignificant contributor to its predictive power on the STALK outcome variable.

Analysis:

Our hypotheses concerning the predictive values of the PROTECT, REAL and ISSUEF variables are confirmed. Our observation that the incidence of protectionism is inversely associated with the STALK variable is corroborated. The relationship is clear in that when jurors are defending and speaking for or through students (PROTECT), student verbal participation rates naturally decrease. The student becomes a bystander in his or her own jury. The findings also support our observations that the amount of student participation increases as do the number of real questions. This seems logical in that productive juries that ask sincere questions of students would likely encourage verbal participation from the students in explaining their designs and thought processes. A related finding from our observations on the REAL variable unfortunately indicates that fewer than four (3.6) real, non-functional questions were asked per jury over our total sample of N=112. We were startled to realize that there were consistently so few inquiries made into the student's decision-making process, data collection, analysis and synthetic thinking processes. It could be argued that the student presentations were so consistently well-detailed that in-depth questions became unnecessary, but our observations strongly suggest otherwise. We believe that jurors' desire to be heard, along with the pressure they often feel to find something to say, may tend to reduce the self-discipline needed to inquire and thoroughly understand the students' thinking processes, knowledge and deficiencies (needs).

Our observations also suggest that juries which tend to focus commentary on a limited scope of topics (ISSUEF), are likely to reduce student verbal participation rates. We have observed that jurors are usually more interested in expressing their opinions than in listening in counter-productive `Sequence II' type juries. Although we had anticipated that numerous rhetorical questions by the jurors would displace student participation, the fact that RHETTOT was dropped from the equation may be explained by its higher correlation with ISSUEF than with the dependent variable, (.408 vs.-.220). Some caution may be due in interpreting the power of these results since the independent variable correlations (r) with STALK were all generally moderate to weak (mean r=.280). All of these variables generally relate to methods of questioning, and the range in the REAL variable was also limited, (range=16, mean=3.6).

Student Preparation:

Post-jury questionnaires and informal interviews with students and faculty indicate that preparation for the students' verbal presentations and defense of their projects is often neglected. We measured student pre-jury preparation through three questions in our post-jury surveys: 1) "Did you prepare a written outline of your verbal presentation prior to your jury?" Responses which became the PREPD variable. 2) "Did you practice your verbal presentation in the presence of another student or design teacher?" Responses which became the PREPE variable. 3) "Describe how well your studio teacher prepared you for verbally defending your design's strengths, (circle one value on a seven point scale from "no preparation" to "thorough preparation")." Responses which became the PREPB variable.

Results:

Fewer than 10 percent (8.39) of the students practiced their verbal presentations out loud, and only 39 percent of the students outlined their verbal presentations prior to their juries, (please see Appendix I). The results also indicate that on the average students feel they do not receive adequate amounts of preparation from their studio teachers prior to their juries, (3.11 on a 7.0 scale).

Analysis:

Research in public speaking strongly suggests that outlining (PREPD) and verbal practice of oral presentations prior to delivery (PREPE) can greatly increase the fluidity and clarity of a speech.¹⁹⁸ Observing our own students in preparation for their juries corroborates this conclusion. Whereas Nelson and Wallick helped establish the need for more preparation, most students in our study spent very little time in organizing and practicing their verbal presentation and defense, and could have been better prepared had their teachers emphasized and assisted in developing their verbal presentations. A review of correlations among preparation variables shows moderate positive correlation (r=.386) between the incidence of post-jury verbal presentation reviews with the teacher (PREPC), and the grade received on the student's verbal presentation (GRPRES). We also found a moderate correlation (r=.463) between pre-jury practice of the verbal presentation with the studio teacher (PREPB) and the students' perception of the jury as a viable source of design information. These findings suggest that the teacher's attitude toward the value of verbal preparation is passed on to the student through these pre- and post-jury sessions. The fact that the teacher cares enough to prepare the students for this experience conveys his or her concern that they develop their presentation and defense skills. Although more research regarding preparation and the outcome variables GRPRES and GRPROJ is needed, we believe that more effort in preparing students' verbal presentations could significantly enhance intra-jury communication, (please see Appendix VIII).

Prejudice and Participation:

Research in related fields indicates that subtle forms of sexual and racial biases can occur in small task-oriented groups. The Synectics Group has observed that female participants in small groups often do not receive an equitable hearing.¹⁹⁹ Research on women in leadership positions also demonstrates that leadership in business, politics and elsewhere has been and still is largely a male domain.²⁰⁰ Our observations in design juries confirm these findings in most respects. Although our sample size is quite small concerning racial bias, we have consistently observed discrimination in the form of juror condescension and increased incidence of interruptions and protectionism for certain races of `minority' students.

Racial Bias in Juries:

African-American students experience more interruptions to their verbal presentations (ISP) and more overall interruptions (ITS) during their juries than average. They also receive less than average amounts of verbal participation time in their juries (STALK). These observations were verifiable through simple statistical analysis of the mean incidence of the ISP, ITS and STALK variables.

Results:

ISP ITS STALK

MEAN 0.61 1.60 .500

(all students)

AFRO-AMERICAN 0.86 4.10 .423

Analysis:

African-American students were interrupted 2.5 times more than the average for all students. Interruptions of African-American students during their verbal presentations occurred 1.4 times more frequently than the average for all students. Verbal participation time (STALK) for African-American students was 20 percent less than average for all students. Although our small sample size renders these findings statistically insignificant, personal experience as a juror suggests that this is an authentic problem, and certainly needs further examination. As previously mentioned, our observations suggest that there is an overly self-conscious attitude toward certain minority students. It's almost as though the jury is so conscious of the possibility of discrimination that they `walk on egg-shells'. The jury seems less relaxed, although its commentary is less openly critical of the students' designs. Remarks appear to be couched in a diplomatic style that renders them condescending and at times insipid. Jurors tend to speak in simplified terms and interrupt the students in the form of gentle prompting. It may therefore be possible that this tense and rather `unnatural' atmosphere encourages more interruptions, allowing less time for students to participate in the proceedings.

Gender Bias in Juries:

In regard to possible sexual bias, our observations suggest that female students receive more interruptions (ISP) to their presentations than other students, and that their juries are briefer than average (TOTTIME). These observations were tested by comparing mean ISP and TOTTIME of female students, with the means for all juries.

Results:

ISP TOTTIME

MEAN (N=112) 0.61 19.60

(all students)

FEMALE (N=34) 0.76 17.50

(students)

Analysis:

Interruptions to female students' verbal presentations (ISP) were 1.25 times more numerous than the average for all students. Total jury time (TOTTIME) for female students averaged 12 percent less than total jury time for all students. The interruptions to the female student presentations suggest a rather condescending attitude toward the design efforts of female students. Less total jury time may therefore reflect of this patronizing stance toward female students by the males who dominated the juries, as females averaged only 22 percent of all juries observed. We have also observed that female students often appear more acquiescent to critical juror remarks, becoming openly defensive less frequently than the males. Female students also receive 30 percent fewer rhetorical questions than males, which may be due in part to their acquiescence to direct criticism, (please see Appendix I).

Female Juror Participation:

In regard to possible sexual bias or inequitable participation rates for female jurors, we observed that female jurors receive less than their fair share of total juror commentary (FDESERVE), and speak for less duration than males (FDURAT vs. MDURAT). When jury leadership is female, both FDESERVE and FDURAT significantly increase. Our observations should be verifiable through comparison of the mean rates of female and male juror verbal participation and duration. Our third hypothesis concerning effects of female leadership is verifiable by comparing female verbal participation and duration rates of female to male jury leadership.

(seconds of female juror talk / seconds of male + female talk)

FDESERVE = -------------------------------------------------------------------------- (no. of female jurors / total no. of jurors)

Results:

FDURAT MDURAT FDESERVE

MEAN 29.10 38.50 -.290

(all juries)

MEAN

(female leader) 25.10 37.30 -.160

Analysis:

The mean rate of female verbal participation (FDESERVE) for all juries observed was 29 percent less than deserved. This inequity may be attributed to a general atmosphere of male domination. As mentioned, female jurors speak less and are interrupted more when they are in the minority. We often observed that female jurors tend to sit together in an almost defensive posture, and generally seem to remain slightly withdrawn from the proceedings, especially when they comprise less than half the membership. When they do speak, their comments are shorter in duration, 25 percent less than males' comments. This may be because their male colleagues interrupt them more often, or because they have become conditioned to, or intimidated by, male-dominated jury environments. Of course there are spectacular exceptions to these observations, but generally female jurors appear to verbally participate significantly less than their male counterparts.

When the jury leader was female, FDESERVE dramatically doubled. This may have occurred for a number of reasons; with female leadership, female jury membership doubles on the average. Our interviews indicate that female leaders are somewhat more active in recruiting female jurors. As previously mentioned, when male to female juror membership ratios approach 1:1, female verbal participation appears to increase as well. Perhaps women feel more confident or willing to express themselves publicly in a less male-dominant environment? Surprisingly, FDURAT decreased slightly with female leadership. This may have occurred because in all three schools observed, female leadership was observed only in preliminary juries and not in the more lengthy thesis juries where commentary is traditionally more drawn out and intricate, (please see Appendix I).

Observer Bias:

Our video tapes of the juries, and informal interviews with the students and faculty, indicate that student presenters are more concerned and aware of the video camera prior to and during their verbal presentations (CAMSTU) than are the jurors (CAMFAC). Our post-jury questionnaires and video observations also indicate that pre-jury student anxiety levels seem to correlate with CAMSTU, and when the jury environment is productive and respectful of the student's ideas and needs, camera bias of the students appears to decrease significantly.²⁰¹ Past experience as design teachers leads us to believe that when students sense that their projects are weak and are anticipating a low grade (GRPROJ), they will enter their juries more anxious and vulnerable to camera bias. We therefore hypothesize the following:

Student vs. Juror Camera Bias:

Selection:

We hypothesize that student presenters will visually acknowledge the presence of the camera (CAMSTU) more frequently than the jurors (CAMFAC) during the jury.

Results:

Basic sum statistics indicate the frequency of camera acknowledgements for student presenters and for jurors. The total number of visual camera acknowledgments for student presenters over the 112 juries observed was 67, the mean per jury being .60, (maximum=5/jury; minimum=0/jury). The total number of visual camera acknowledgments for jurors over the 112 juries observed was 16, the mean per jury being .14, (see Appendix I).

Analysis:

Students acknowledged the camera more frequently than did jurors. Considering that the number of jurors averaged approximately seven per jury, or seven times more than the one student presenter per jury, this finding is even more striking. The anxious moments experienced by the students on center stage and during the public evaluation of their work may increase their awareness of the camera as one more judgmental participant in the jury. The fact that the students most likely have less experience in public speaking than do the jurors may also add to this effect. We should remember here that the camera was usually located between the jurors and the student presenter, parallel to the juror seating line, so jurors and presenters had approximately equal exposure to the camera and operator.

Student Camera Bias:

Selection:

We hypothesize that the incidence of student visual acknowledgement of the camera (CAMSTU), could be predicted by a regression equation which includes the following variables:

IB: the incidence of idea building in the jury, (inverse association with CAMSTU).

ITOTAL: total number of intra-jury interruptions (ITOTAL), (positive association with CAMSTU).

Intercorrelation Matrix:

CAMSTU IB ITOTAL

CAMSTU 1.000

IB -.292 1.000

ITOTAL .367 -.391 1.000

Procedures:

We ran a stepwise regression analysis of the following equation:

<CAMSTU>=constant+b1IB+b2ITOTAL

(please note that <CAMSTU>=predicted CAMSTU)

The strategy was to seek out which variable correlated most highly with the outcome variable (CAMSTU), and then to rank subsequent variables in descending order of relative contribution to predictability (R²). The complete results of this regression study are located in Appendix III.

Results:

1) The ITOTAL independent variable was selected first, (correlation r=.367 with the outcome variable REAL), R²=.135 (indicating that approximately 14% of the variance in the dependent variable is due to the IB independent variable, and significant P(2 tail)£.005. 2) The IB variable was entered second with a r=.401, R²=.161, ΔR²= .034 (contribution to the predictability of the equation), and a significant P(2 tail)£.080.

The null hypotheses were rejected on the ITOTAL, and IB participating variables, as their .90 confidence intervals around coefficients omitted the zero value, (please see Appendix III).

Analysis:

Judging from the results of the regression analysis, hypotheses concerning the predictive values of the ITOTAL and IB variables are confirmed. The students may feel that when the jury is actively idea-building and not continually interrupting them and one another, it is not such a threat to their self-esteem, and they may feel more a part of a team interested in collaborative design, becoming engaged in the jury process and not the audience.

SUMMARY OF INTERPRETATIONS:

The following is a brief synopsis of significant findings generated in this chapter.

Productive / Counterproductive Jury Environments:

Idea-Building:

strongly associated with productive and collaborative environments where jurors allow most ideas a fair hearing, sincerely question the students' understanding of their designs and the process of designing, build on one another's comments, and use the student's initial intentions as a starting point for dialogue. An idea-building oriented jury process can be characterized by the following conditions: 1) minimal interruptions to the student's verbal presentation; 2) high incidence of real, non-functional questioning of the student; 3) well-rounded, comprehensive juror feedback to students, minimal intra-jury interruptions during the commentary, with jurors focusing on collaborative idea-building and not on vying for recognition. Our study showed that juries averaged fewer than three (2.9) incidents of idea-building per jury.

Issue-Focus:

appears associated with counter-productive and contentious jury environments, where participants are generally disrespectful of one another's ideas and rights of personal expression, and the focus is upon personal expression and not on collaborative analysis of how the student's original design intentions have been realized. Sincere inquiry is displaced by rhetorical questioning, and interruptions are used to gain recognition for one's own ideas. This disrespectful attitude can become contagious, and result in a self-serving jury atmosphere. A `Sequence II' jury operates in a didactic fashion where the following events often occur: 1) numerous intra-jury interruptions; 2) numerous rhetorical questions; 3) reduced percentage of student verbal participation; and 4) a jury focused on one or two issues at the expense of comprehensive response to the student's design efforts. The strong inverse associations between issue focus and idea-building support our observations of the two antithetical progressions of jury behavior, one collaborative and additive, the other constricted and exclusive. Our observations show that 30 percent (.304) of all juries studied focused on fewer than three issues at the expense of well-rounded feedback to the student. 50 percent of the juries in one school in our study were `issue-focused'. This same school also averaged only 1.25 incidents of idea-building per jury; fewer than four (3.6) real non-functional questions were asked per jury over our total sample of N=112.

Motivation and Participation:

if the jury has effectively communicated with students, and engaged them in the process as integral and respected participants through real non-functional / conceptual questioning, then the dialogue will likely motivate them to continue design activities within this system of design education and review. Students can perceive mundane, functionally-oriented questioning as `jurors operating by rote', with little concern for the conceptual origins and meaning of their work. Real, conceptually-oriented questioning may convince students that the jurors are striving to understand the fundamental aspects of their designs. Even if the jurors' comments are negative, students will at least know that juror comments were not cursory, but based on some fundamental understanding of what they were trying to accomplish. This knowledge in itself may encourage students to view subsequent feedback from the jury as worthy of consideration.

The students' post-jury motivation to continue design activity within this framework positively associates with and can be predicted by their post-jury perception of the jury's usefulness as a source of information. Motivated students continue to work within this sort of edifying system when they see that the teachers believe in the system, and use it as a relevant educational tool. Post-jury motivation therefore appears positively associated with idea-building, student stimulation, engagement in the jury process, juror respect of the student and the process, and post-jury student perception of the jury as a source of information. As idea-building increases and new, exciting, and motivating ideas / alternatives are generated, the jury may be perceived by the student as a benevolent design tool and a valid source of information. If students are constantly involved in defending their self-esteem, they will not be receptive to new ideas and concepts, will become defensive, and will view the jury as an ordeal rather than an opportunity.

Student Preparation:

In the days prior to their juries, students most often focus on design and graphics at the expense of developing their verbal presentations. Fewer than 10 percent of the students practice their presentations out loud before their juries, and fewer than 40 percent even outline what they intend to say. This often results in confused and unprofessional introductions to their design projects. Their lack of preparedness can both offend and bore jurors who may have been experiencing a series of ill-prepared presentations. Ineffectual introductions may encourage disrespectful and impatient attitudes in the jurors, and lead to nonproductive jury environments. Our findings suggest that the teacher's attitude toward the value of verbal preparation is passed on to the student through pre- and post-jury sessions. The fact that the teacher cares enough to prepare the students for this experience conveys his or her concern that the students develop their presentation and defense skills.

Prejudice and Participation:

African-American students were interrupted 2.5 times more often than the average of all students. Interruptions of African-American students during their verbal presentations occurred 1.4 times more frequently than the average for all student presentations. Verbal participation time (STALK) for African-American students was 20 percent less than average for all juries observed.

Our study revealed that female jurors spoke approximately 29 percent less time than they deserved to speak relative to their membership ratios. Female jurors speak less and are interrupted more often when their membership ratios are less than fifty-fifty. When they do speak, female juror comments are 25 percent shorter than males' comments. This may be because they are interrupted by their male colleagues more often, or because they have become conditioned to, or intimidated by, male-dominated jury environments. When jury leadership is female, female verbal participation rates doubled. With female leadership, female jury membership doubles on the average. When male to female juror membership ratios approach 1:1, female verbal participation appears to increase.

Observer Bias:

Students visually acknowledged the camera four times more frequently than did the jurors. Considering that the number of jurors averaged approximately seven per jury, or seven times more than the one student presenter per jury, these findings are even more striking. Our observations showed a negative association between CAMSTU and IB. This may indicate that when jurors are actively idea-building, and not continually interrupting them and one another, students feel that the jurors are not such a threat to their self-esteem. During active idea-building, students may feel more a part of a team interested in collaborative design. They are no longer part of the audience, become engaged in the jury process, and the presence of the camera becomes less apparent.