HCI Disciplinary Commons Portfolio - Fiona Fairlie
Assessment Commentary
The HCI module I teach is currently assessed using two different instruments: coursework and exam. The two elements have equal weight. The reasoning behind this is that a practically focused module aiming towards user centred, active student learning requires correspondingly active participation from students. When the module was last reviewed serious consideration was given to the possibility of moving to entirely coursework- based evaluation of student work. However, it was recognised that it would be very difficult to consistently set coursework with sufficient breadth and depth as to guarantee to assess all of the learning outcomes of the module. In particular it was felt that it would be difficult to set projects which would ensure that students paid enough attention to all of the theoretical principles underpinning the module.
The learning outcomes are that on completion of this module the student should be able to:
i) discuss the construction of interface solutions as adopted by manufacturers of present day computer operating systems/environments, for stand alone and networked desktop computers
ii) assess the relative merits of various interface techniques with reference to the design of multimedia/general applications, and their interpretation by the user
iii) analyse the relationship of graphic design concepts in the development of human computer interaction solutions
iv) analyse the role of digital audio/video components in the design of human computer interaction
v) discuss the standards applied to the development of hardware/software ergonomics, usability and legal issues arising from the development of interface design
vi) evaluate the role of interface design in the delivery of computer based applications and describe basic cognitive processes which influence the same
vii) apply analysis, design, implementation and evaluation techniques to create an interface solution which addresses the requirements of a project brief.
At the time of the last review, it was decided that it would be appropriate to keep an exam element which would aim to explore the breadth of students’ knowledge and understanding of the subject material while increasing the importance of the practical project, which would aim to allow students to apply the skills being taught and demonstrate creative ability combined with the application of relevant theories to create a usable interactive interface.
Currently the exam element takes the form of a three hour written paper during which students are expected to answer three questions from a choice of five. These questions cover topics from the first six learning outcomes. Questions are framed with the aim of getting students to apply the theories they have been taught in practical situations. However it is recognised that the exam, as it stands with its emphasis on breadth, tends to focus on the three or four lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy rather than requiring students to develop deeper, more sustained arguments.
The coursework element takes the form of a project which runs over nine weeks of semester. There are two submissions: a set of storyboards/ planning document due in week 6 and an electronic prototype with an accompanying report in week 12, the last week of teaching. This year’s brief was to develop a prototype of the interface for a patient monitoring system to be used in a hospital ward. The system was to monitor all patients on a ward and notify staff if any patient’s condition fell outside set boundaries. It was also to provide a visual record of each patient’s progress over time. Staff could also record details of patients, their condition and medication and produce patient reports in various formats. The accompanying artefact shows some examples of students’ response to this brief. It can be seen that students are presented with a relatively unstructured brief and required to decide for themselves how to proceed. The idea is to encourage them to take responsibility for their own learning and for them to reflect on what is important for them to know. Central to this approach is the belief that learning, assessment and evaluation of student achievement are not separate activities but closely coupled and should be developed together to produce a meaningful experience.
When I took over as module leader about five years ago the coursework element gave me some concern. I had previously taught on the module and had been struck by two things: the apparent lack of connection between the two coursework submissions in the students’ minds and also the evident worry they felt before the first hand in- the first assessed piece of work at university for many of the students. On discussing these issues with other lecturers involved we came to the conclusion that it was not the coursework structure that was at fault but its contextualisation. So, over the next few years we added in a lecture to explain the use of storyboarding, supplied template storyboards and exemplars of good work and introduced a practical storyboarding activity early in the semester to allow students to practice the relevant skills and receive feedback before being assessed.
We also started to give students detailed verbal feedback on their storyboards as well as written comments and to insist on seeing project work on a weekly basis. This ongoing dialogue has improved student engagement with the coursework and improved results.
The success of this project based approach depends, to a large extent, on staffing of the practical studio sessions. These are currently taught by experienced staff but recent staff changes coupled with an increasing reliance on part time staff may mean that this changes in future. The importance of dialogue and ongoing evaluation mean that high levels of support may be required for less experience staff teaching on the module.
Updated: 22 April, 2008 | Site
editor | Legal
|
