Across my studio, lab, and thesis courses, I evaluate student work through a process-driven and evidence-based rubric that prioritizes ethical reasoning, conceptual clarity, and meaningful technological synthesis over surface-level polish.

1. Ideation & Research Rigor

Students are assessed on the depth and quality of their research, including theoretical and interdisciplinary sources, observational fieldwork, and both qualitative and quantitative inquiry. In critique, I focus on whether students can clearly articulate what they are investigating, why it matters, and how their research informs design decisions, rather than treating research as a decorative reference layer.

2. Contextualization & Criticality

A key component of evaluation is how well students situate their work within social, cultural, political, and ethical contexts. During critiques, I ask students to identify the assumptions embedded in their concepts and technologies, and to reflect on issues such as equity, accessibility, authorship, labor, and power. Ethical perspective is treated not as an add-on, but as a design constraint that actively shapes form, interaction, and system behavior.

3. Concept–Technology Synthesis

Students are evaluated on how effectively they translate ideas into purposeful technological form. Rather than rewarding technical complexity alone, I assess whether technology is used with clear intent—where interaction design, usability, the choreography of objects or participants, metaphor, storytelling, and sensory experience work together to reinforce the conceptual goals of the project. During critique, I often guide students to simplify, refocus, or reframe their technical approaches in order to strengthen conceptual coherence and experiential clarity.

4. Iteration, Testing, and Reflection

Iteration is central to both assessment and mentorship, and I devote sustained attention to this phase alongside research and writing. I evaluate how students form hypotheses, test assumptions, respond to stakeholder and peer feedback, and revise their work over time, using prototypes as thinking tools rather than final answers—an approach grounded in experiential learning.

Critique sessions explicitly address what changed, what failed, and what was learned, and students are expected to document these shifts through reflective writing, developer logs, and design documentation. Progress is measured by learning trajectory and depth of inquiry, not by early perfection or surface-level polish.

5. Communication & Articulation

Finally, students are assessed on their ability to communicate their process, decisions, final output clearly—through presentations, writing, critique participation, and documentation. I support students in articulating their work as both analysis in experience stages and intervention, helping them connect individual design choices to larger systems and audiences.