Teaching design relies on critique as a component of its pedagogy. As mediated communication becomes progressively more pervasive in the learning experience of developing designers, we see a need to explore how critique manifests in these mediated spaces. This study explores how learners of design use Facebook groups to collaboratively bring about design learning via critique. Facebook group communications of graduate Human-Computer Interaction design (HCI/d) participants at a large Midwestern American university were analyzed. Data included 4558 status updates and 15273 comments from 160 students. A preliminary analysis of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in this Facebook group revealed that communication centered on quasi-professional social talk, and under this framing, informal peer critique emerged as a form of phatic, professional communication. Seventy-four threads, out of a corpus of 4558, focused on critique, suggesting learners did not capitalize on the potential of the media. Critique threads were primarily posted in groups with larger numbers of members, reflecting the desire for a broader venue of potential critique participants employed by those who recognize the potential of the media. A participation coefficient was devised to represent the level of reciprocity, addressing both the students’ participation in requesting critique through status updates, and in providing feedback to other student requests for critique. No significant relationship was found between these two participation metrics, despite the assertion by multiple students that reciprocity was, or should be, present in these online critiques. Three outliers were located in this participation matrix, and are discussed as a framing for future work in understanding informal communication around critique as a type of designerly talk.

1. Expectations of
Reciprocity?
An Analysis of Critique in Facebook
Posts by Student Designers
Colin M. Gray & Craig D. Howard
November 28, 2013

2. INTRODUCTION
How is informal critique being enacted
outside of the formal pedagogy and how
digital tools can enable this form of critique
Understanding the pedagogy as experienced
and constructed by students
Exploring these questions through a set of
student-created Facebook groups

3. RELEVANT
LITERATURE
Informal critique
(Bowring; Conanan & Pinkard; Gray; Xu & Bailey)
Hidden curriculum and critical pedagogy
(Freire; Dutton)
Theories of computer-mediated
communication
(Herring; Walther)

4. CONTEXT
Student-created set of Facebook groups
Within a Human-Computer Interaction
design Master’s program at a large
Midwestern US university

5. POSTS
1206
All
Years
1269
Current
Years
2012
Cohort
2013
Cohort
2014
Cohort
475
655
953

6. COMMENTS
4165
All
Years
3771
Current
Years
2012
Cohort
2013
Cohort
2014
Cohort
966
2501
3870

7. 2012
Cohort
All
Years
Current
Years
2013
Cohort
2014
Cohort
4,558 Status Updates
15,273 Comments

10. QUESTIONS
1. To which Facebook groups do learners
address their requests for critique?
2. Is there a relationship between the
comments given to peer critiques and to
the comments one’s receives?

11. INITIAL CODES
•
•
•
•
addressing new technologies explicitly (e.g., motion control)
professional development
relating to projects outside coursework (e.g., portfolio sites)
idea-related discussions (e.g., what is HCI; role of intuition or
ethics)
• recommending/posting a resource or interaction design
exemplar
• dealing with selecting courses
• relating to other forms of talk that have a critique component
• referencing critique about public events (e.g., HCI Connect)

12. INITIAL CODES
•
•
•
•
addressing new technologies explicitly (e.g., motion control)
professional development
relating to projects outside coursework (e.g., portfolio sites)
idea-related discussions (e.g., what is HCI; role of intuition or
ethics)
• recommending/posting a resource or interaction design
exemplar
• dealing with selecting courses
• relating to other forms of talk that have a critique component
• referencing critique about public events (e.g., HCI Connect)

13. 2012
Cohort
All
Years
Current
Years
2013
Cohort
2014
Cohort
“feedback” | “look at” | “portfolio” | “critique”
=
204 Status Updates

14. INCLUSION CRITERIA
1. Does it directly ask for critique/suggestions/
feedback or help?
2. Does it link to, or reference, a concrete designed
artifact or idea created by the poster?
3. If it references a non-digital critique, does it
include requests for getting together with the
explicit goal of feedback in person, or organizing
such an activity around a distinct artifact or
genre of artifacts (e.g., cover letters)?

15. # of Critique
Threads
Group Name
Average # of
comments (SD)
Current years
28
7.5357 (5.7909)
All years
26
7.1538 (4.4609)
2012 cohort
8
3.8750 (3.9824)
2013 cohort
3
3.3333 (2.4944)
2014 cohort
9
7.4444 (5.1232)
TOTAL
74
6.8243 (5.1527)

16. Averaged Discourse
Characteristics
Critique
Threads,
n=74, (SD)
Entire Corpus,
n=4558, (SD)
Length of status
update in words
50.9324
(37.0122)
31.1404
(48.0496)
Length of comments
in words
34.7515
(59.4333)
19.3485
(30.5103)
Number of
interlocutors
3.8649
(2.2799)
2.2251
(2.7920)
Total number of words
in thread
234.3378
(253.6336)
64.8333
(165.7053)
Character length
of words
4.2632
(0.4202)
3.9528
(1.1682)

17. 36
74 Posts
Requesting
Critique
(158)
383

18. RECIPROCITY
I could really use some critique on mine, but
rather than just ask for it like a freeloader I'll
make you a deal: If you give a critique of
mine and post your link, I will give you a
critique in return.
All Years, status update
22 January, 2013
All Years, status update
20 January, 2013
Happy to receive any feedback you guys
might have; let me know if there's
something of yours I can look at as well!
My portfolio is up, and I am jumping on the
"you critique mine ill crique your's [sic]" boat.
All Years, status update
22 January, 2013

19. participation
=
coefficient
# comments/thread
# comments posted on other threads

20. participation
=
coefficient
# comments/thread
# comments posted on other threads
Average
Comments/Initiated
Critique
Thread

21. participation
=
coefficient
# comments/thread
# comments posted on other threads
Pearson’s r = -.233
Average
Comments/Initiated
Critique
Thread

22. 74 Posts
Requesting
Critique
<10 posts are requests
for class projects

23. 74 Posts
Requesting
Critique
<10 posts are requests
for class projects
primarily critique of
professional development
materials

24. INSTIGATION
2014 Cohort,
11 December 2012
i would love more feedback
All Years,
7 November 2011
I really need some hard critique and bugs
pointed out. Any feedback would be
appreciated.
Can anyone of you please check if you can
access my portfolio URL
2014 Cohort,
6 March 2013
2014 Cohort,
22 January 2013
I am open to any kind of comments
or critique.

25. PHYSICAL LOCATIONS
Anybody around tonight
and available to critique a
cover letter?
2012 Cohort,
1 February 2012
Anybody free to quickly
give feedback on a few
ideas I have for my poster
image? I'm wanting to get
it finished and printed
today...
2012 Cohort,
23 April 2012

26. IMPOSITION OF
STRUCTURE
This is still a work in
progress, but I'm ready for
some critiques. Please
say a) something nice, b)
something not nice (but in
a nice way), and c) a
suggestion for
improvement. 1-2-3 go!
All Years,
10 January 2012
the following is a link to
our in-progress [project
name] document. If
anybody would like to
read through it and give
us feedback, that would
be awesome. Even if all
you can do is quickly skim
it and give us one
meaningful response.
2012 Cohort,
18 February 2011

27. IMPOSITION OF
STRUCTURE
Finally worked out some bugs on the
portfolio and I would appreciate any
thoughts or critiques on it. If it takes a long
time to load, let me know, I'm considering
backing off on the one page experience if
load time is an issue.
All Years,
10 January 2012

28. OTHER LOCATIONS
I've posted the questions on a google doc
for you to edit and make changes and
suggestions. I'm getting started next week
but will continue to adjust my approach
throughout the project, so feel free to
contribute anytime. I know everyone is very
busy but any feedback is greatly
appreciated.
2012 Cohort,
3 June 2011

29. Balanced
Participant
“Expert”
Participant
“Freeloader”
Participant
Average
Comments/Initiated
Critique
Thread

30. FREELOADER
Requested feedback and received 15
responses, but never commented on other
student requests
!
My portfolio is up, and I am jumping on the
"you critique mine ill crique your's [sic]" boat.
All Years, status update
22 January, 2013
!
Unclear whether participation in critique
occurred in other spaces

31. EXPERT/AUTHORITY
Frequent commented on other student
requests for critique
Low critique on their own work (avg. of 2.5
comments per request)
Disparity could suggest that other students
view this individual as an authority, possibly
making them more difficult to critique

32. BALANCED
One of relatively few female (n=10) and
international (n=11) students participating in
critique
Started 4 threads (receiving an avg. of 4
comments) and contributed 36 comments
on others’ threads
Most balanced, but appears to be an outlier

33. CONCLUSIONS
Learners changed modes and discussed differently
when engaged in critical discourse about design
despite the “social” nature of the media
Reciprocity did not appear to play a role in these
critiques
Profiles of different types of participation emerged
from the participation coefficient
Critique happened around professional concerns, not
program concerns

34. LIMITATIONS
Descriptive, and doesn’t explain why
reciprocity does not occur in the virtual
space
Doesn’t address critique in other physical or
virtual environments
Limited to the socialization and pedagogical
particulars of a specific academic program

35. FUTURE RESEARCH
Importance of understanding the felt
experience of a design pedagogy
Understanding the hidden curriculum,
including how formal and informal
components impact learning
How are virtual spaces conceived,
created, and sustained over time?

36. QUESTIONS?