A Portfolio for Human Computer Interaction Design

 
Home
Aims & Philosophy
Context & History
Content
Instructional Design
Assessment
Evaluation
Delivery
Contact

 

Module Report
 
 

Home > Evaluation> Module Report

Fig. 17 Artefact HCID Module Report

 

SAD156 - Human Computer Interaction Design

SOUTHAMPTON SOLENT UNIVERSITY

 

UNIT REPORT 2006-2007

 

 

Unit Code:

  SAD156

Unit Name:

  Human Computer Interaction Design

 

Unit Leader:

David Cox

Faculty:

 TEC

 

Key strengths and issues arising from student performance.  Including any actions taken from last year;

 Students worked very well on a case study which required planning designing and evaluating elements revolving round a medical supplier.  Results show that students worked well in teams employing relevant software to construct very usable products, with very effective design and builds which were evaluated thoroughly and clearly using task based procedures.  This, in conjunction with an individual element, produced a good overall mean result of 59% with a significant number achieving  above 70%.    Work was also presented and demonstrated very well indeed.  A minority did not focus on some task based design aspects clearly enough.  Usability testing procedures were refined this year in line with action plan and students focused well on this area of user-centred evaluation.  Generally, work was of a very high standard particularly in usability testing areas.   

Key strengths and issues arising from student feedback.  Please indicate how feedback was obtained during the year;

 As well as questionnaires as part of the Student Survey, a separate psychological factors research questionnaire on human factors and task analysis was distributed.  Almost 100% responded to the latter.  A majority agreed that they felt good about this unit in relation to the rest of their course and had a fuller understanding of various specific aspects of the unit.  Also students agreed that they knew what they were supposed to be learning were happy with the quality & found the unit relevant to their needs.  The support web site was said to be helpful and useful.  Other comments stated that the online support facilities were excellent and unit was well prepared and with interesting relevant topics. A small minority found the small proportion of programming more than enough but others stated it was about right and liked the mini-chunk size pieces of gradual information for the unit as a whole.

Actions for improvement next year;

Refinement of online support and usability testing procedures.  Further emphasis on task based approaches.

 

 

       
David Cox