Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 2024 - 24

Using the Liz Lerman Critique Process
The purpose is to become more articulate in our thinking about lighting design and all
aspects of engineering from the perspective of the production electrician, as well as
overall leadership and comfort in public speaking and presentation.
Consider a 90-minute+ critical response process adapted for lighting department
critiques. Note that the term responders refers to the entire lighting department and
other interested participants in the critique. All responders must be qualified to speak
by having seen the show and understanding the protocol. Each of these sessions will
have a facilitator from the lighting faculty to keep time and guide the action within each
step.
Step 1: 5 minutes
Introduction by the facilitator to the process. Introduce the designer and production
electrician to the responders.
Step 2a: 15 minutes
The lighting designer makes a statement of intent for the design and presents the
work. If it is possible (i.e., the critique is happening in the theatre before the strike), the
designer can show aspects of the work, like lighting systems or specific cues. It is possible
that the designer could speak at this time about something that they were working
on in this show or something that they learned about design through this process.
Step 2b: 10 minutes
Production electrician makes a statement about the challenges presented by the show.
If possible, the electrician may show an example of a particular engineered solution or
another example of the work or something they learned while doing the show.
Step 3: 10 minutes
Statements of meaning: Responders state what was exciting, compelling, meaningful,
memorable, or evocative about the work of either the designer or production electrician
(or the teams that they represent).
Step 4: 15 minutes
The lighting designer and the production electrician pose questions of the responders.
Step 5: 15 minutes
Responders ask questions phrased neutrally. Lighting designer and production electrician
respond.
Step 6: 15 minutes
Responders ask permission from the designer to express opinions about their work. If
the designer accepts, responders state opinions.
Step 7: 5 minutes
Wrap up by facilitator.
example, the subject relates to the audience's
need to see faces by applying fill
light. In Western theatrical practice, the
principal spokesperson for the audience
is the show's director (Hodge & McLain
2016). Therefore, the subject could be
made more present by inviting a stage director
to the reflection period to discuss
the problem of the visibility of the actors.
The presence of a stage director could
solidify the designers' understanding of
the use of the fill lights. A facilitator with
domain expertise could also take on the
director's role.
Difficulty: Carefully consider problem
difficulty: if a problem is too complex for
a learner or a group of learners to solve,
they may not want to invest the cognitive
energy to try to solve it (Hung 2019).
Consider these parameters in evaluating
problem complexity:
* Required general knowledge: library
and internet search skills, the experience
of seeing other plays onstage to
understand concepts like end-stage
better.
* Required domain knowledge and
the learner's attainment level of that
knowledge: concepts like key light or
fill light.
24 | THEATRE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY | ISSUE 1, 2024
* General work: conceive the visual
space of a scene or a play in an endstage
configuration.
* Detail mastery: how the lights operate
and how to obtain the necessary
props for setting up the scene. The
problem should be solvable within
the abilities and means of the learners
(Ertmer & Glazewski 2019).
Teamwork: A significant benefit of SBL
is the acculturalization of each learner
into a practice (Boling 2016). Working
on problems collaboratively builds social
development and binds learners into
a practical culture (Ferreira & Trudel
2012). Rotating responsibilities between
problems is vital to increase individual
responsibility (Blumberg 2019).
Problem-based learning has been increasingly
used in the undergraduate program
in lighting design at the University
of North Carolina School of the Arts
(UNCSA) over the past four years. During
this time, the program doubled the physical
size of the light lab, equipped it with
positions that approximate those found
in a proscenium theatre, dedicated lighting
inventory to the lab space, and implemented
an online scheduling system for
24-hour access. The program has moved
all lighting design classes to the light lab,
and lighting design learners have permanent
workspaces in rooms near the lab.
The change to PBL has been challenging,
mainly in acquiring problem
design skills and the time needed to design
and analyze each problem for each
course level. However, a commitment
to hands-on studio-based learning, the
increased size and capacity of the light
lab, and the 3C3R PBL model have all
contributed to greater learner engagement
and enthusiasm. The lighting design
program at UNCSA is committed to
continuing to increase the implementation
of PBL. UNCSA also implemented
learner-led critiques for all lighting design
works during this period based on the
Liz Lerman Critical Response Process
(LLCRP). This formal critique method effectively
encourages broad participation
and learner-centered reflections (Lerman
& Borstel 2003). See the sidebar on page
24 to learn how the program has fit the
Lerman method into its lighting critiques.
While UNCSA benefits from institutional
investment in studio spaces
that enable problem-based learning to
work in conjunction with ideally realized

Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Winter 2024