HCI Portfolio

1. HCI Portfolio • In a nutshell: • Level 3, Final Year Undergraduate Course Option • A London University • Multi-cultural and diverse range of learners

2. Contents • 1. Introduction • Environment • Aims and Philosophy • 2. Course Content • 3. Instructional Design • 4. Delivery • 5. Assessment • 6. Evaluation • Artefact 1: “Saying” • Artefact 2: Semantic Map • Artefact 3: Course Specification: Learning Outcomes • Artefact 4: Montage • Artefact 5: Course Specification: Assessment Details • Artefact 6: Cartoon

3. Artefact 1 • “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”

4. 1. Introduction1.1 Environment: • The Staff • Lecturer’s/Course Coordinator’s background is in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and Education. • On occasions when the cohort is large (more than two tutorial groups, i.e. over 50 students), the course is supported by one or two tutors, these are members of the lecturing staff or competent research students.

5. The Course • The Human-Computer Interaction course is an option taught annually at the School, to final year undergraduate students on Computer Science (CS), Information Systems (IS), and Multimedia (MM) programmes. Some students on some programmes will have had a “taste of HCI” in earlier courses. • The course has been running for five years, replacing what was effectively a Formal Methods course labelled HCI run by a mathematician. • As an option, class sizes vary considerably and tend to reduce when run in the evenings to enable part-time students to attend, with Information Systems students opting for a similar day-time course (available only to Information Systems students). Cohort sizes range from 30 to 130 students. This year’s cohort (2007-8) is around 50 students.

6. Student ability varies but is reflective of most universities, with very strong and very weak students and an increasing absence of the middle of the Normal Distribution. Some weak students are attracted to HCI as an “easy” option. • Students attending the University mirror the local populations and are therefore extremely diverse in terms of ethnicity and culture. This applies equally to the School and course. The School and the course have a predominantly male contingent.

7. 1.2 Course Aims and Teaching Philosophy • Course Aims • The aims and learning outcomes (objectives) are as described in the Course Specification.

8. Teaching Philosophy • Exceptionally bright students will always be capable of achieving their objectives to some degree, whatever the standard of teaching. However, all students are capable of achieving their individual best with a teacher who inspires them by showing that they matter. My overall philosophy is not to follow any specific doctrine or dogma, but to put it succinctly, simply to do the very best for my students. • My teaching philosophy specifically in relation to HCI is as described in the aims, to provide the student with an in-depth knowledge and understanding of how users interact with products and systems, and how we can design and build better user interfaces.

9. HCI • Introduction Social & Organisational aspects THEORY PRACTICE Human Knowledge Conceptual Human I/O Devices Approaches Evaluation Cognition and Mental Models & Learning to Design Models Metaphors Human Interaction Approaches Approaches Capabilities & Styles to Design 1 to Design 2 Limitations The Memory Other Interaction Interaction Senses Issues Styles 1 Styles 2 Artefact 2 Topic map for the “Human-Computer Interaction ” course module.

10. Artefact 2 • 1. Introduction • 2. Human Cognition • Human Limitations and Capabilities: • - 3. The Senses • - 4. Memory • - 5. Other Issues • 6. Knowledge and Mental Models • 7. Interface Metaphors and Conceptual Models • 8. Human Learning • 9. Social and Organisational Aspects • 10. I/O Devices • 11. & 12. Interaction Styles: 1 – 2 • 13. Approaches to Design • 14. Task Analysis • 15. Evaluation • 16.-19. HC-I Applications: CSCW 1 – 4 • 20. Revision

11. 2. Course Content • The course content is described in the Course Specification document. • It is also manifest in the form of twenty lectures as listed in the Course Schedule on the School’s VLE. A summary in the form of a semantic map is given (Artefact 2).

12. An introduction to Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) is given in the lecture on Social and Organisational Aspects. The detailed presentation of CSCW (lectures 16-19 on Applications) are usually not assessed, as they are considered beyond the requirements for final year undergraduates and more appropriate to masters level. • Lectures 1-8, then 11-15 are taught first as they are necessary for practical application and therefore the coursework, followed by lectures 9 and 10. Lectures 1-15 are therefore deemed to be the “essential” core material, lectures 16-19 are deemed to be “extra”. The final lecture, 20, is on Revision.

13. Key Texts and Recommended Reading: • Recent journals and websites, on HCI and Interaction Design. • Material from all the essential and recommended reading is used. Benyon et al. is the current favourite as it has a broad scope, is easy to read and contains lots of examples. • The approach to content adopted is primarily to provide a good understanding and coverage of the essentials of HCI to fulfil the course requirements, but to supplement this with further reading and lectures for students who aim to go beyond the successful completion of the fundamentals to achieve high marks and proceed to further study. • The changes to content reflect the changes in the discipline with the material being constantly updated and revised.

14. Artefact 3 • Learning Outcomes: (statements of what a learner can do, know and understand as a result of successfully completing the course) • On completion of this unit, students will be able to: • Demonstrate a comprehension of the nature of cognitive psychology and how it influences the ways in which users interact with computer systems, • Formally specify, analyse, design and implement user interfaces for complex software systems, • Develop multimedia applications which incorporate advanced user interaction techniques, • Demonstrate a synthesis of the theory and application, • Demonstrate a critical evaluation of issues in Interface Design.

15. Learning and Teaching Activities: (these should reflect the learning outcomes and how they may be achieved) • Lectures, practical and classroom based tutorials, programming and use of multimedia, graphics and virtual environment packages. • Material will be introduced in lectures and practised in tutorial and laboratories. • Student time will be spent on: • Lectures: 2 hours • Tutorials/ Laboratory 1 hour

16. 3. Instructional Design • From the Course Specification are given the Learning Outcomes and Learning and Teaching Activities (Artefact 3)

17. Artefact 4 Quick Quiz Question ? ?

18. 4. Delivery • The Learning and Teaching Activities are predetermined, lectures are necessary due to resource constraints. Lectures are required to be delivered as PowerPoint Presentations, but in practice are treated as a backdrop . Lectures are used to convey the essential facts (theory) with supporting detailed lecture notes. However, the lecture format is not strictly adhered to. The initial lecture hour is more conventional although highly interactive, involving demonstrations, audience participation, quizzes (which provide immediate feedback) and sweets. For instance, students create paper planes to achieve a greater understanding of prototyping and task analysis, they also conduct experiments to assess colour perception (non-computing concepts).

19. The second lecture hour is more needs based, working through issues raised, any difficulties, etc. promoting discussion and deep understanding, the tutorial and laboratory exercises, in addition to the set coursework often acting as a catalyst for this. Lectures are structured, beginning with a statement of the Lecture aims and objectives, and ending with a Summary and “What you (students) should be able to do/know” sections. Lectures include Quick Quiz Questions requiring “audience participation”, always starting with the back row, with the reward of sweeties. • All lectures are complemented by tutorials, several involving laboratory work to reinforce concepts introduced in the lecture. The tutorials and laboratories permit the theory to be discussed (i.e. how the theory is justified and applied), they build upon the theory given in the lectures to allow instances of practice.

20. As the lecture, tutorial and laboratory formats although mandatory are not strictly adhered to, and with the course being dynamically tailored for the students, consideration of different delivery methods is irrelevant as the instructional design has evolved to this state, accommodating restrictions imposed due to the doctrines of the school, therefore further refinements would be minor. • Most of the content is covered in the lectures; most of the application is covered by the tutorials, laboratories, and coursework. Students maintain a logbook of their tutorials and laboratories etc. to further reinforce concepts and learning. Student coursework commentary demonstrates the application of the theory to the design. (Theory is assessed mainly in the examination).

21. Artefact 5 • Assessment Details: • Methods of Assessment: Examination/Coursework • Grading: • Mode: • Weighting %: 70/30 • Minimum Pass Mark: • Words Length: • Outline Details: 3 hour examination assessing learning outcomes A, B, D, E. Coursework on designing and implementing a multimedia system testing learning outcomes A, B and C.

22. 5. Assessment • From the Course Specification (Artefact 5) the Assessment Details are predefined. • The things considered to be important to HCI assessment are as follows, and are reflected in essence by the Learning Outcomes.

23. The assessment details, including the weighting are fixed. The examination is where the comprehension of the theoretical aspects is tested, however examples of application are required which may make reference to the logbook (tutorials, laboratories, etc) and the coursework. The coursework is predominantly where the application and theory the understanding of theory is demonstrated. There are some “recommendations” meant to get students to act upon their strengths, imposed by individual departments for their students, e.g. Computer Science students are recommended to produce an interface using Java. Variations for Multimedia, Information Systems and Computer Sciences students are provided – they may produce a product, a web site or an interface, respectively.

24. Artefact 6 • However carefully we follow guidelines and standards when designing courses we need to step back from the developing course and evaluate it. Otherwise we may create a monster … Dr Frankenstein carefully followed the “Guidelines and Standards for Creation of an artificial Human Being”

25. 6. Evaluation • Evaluation mechanisms employed are as follows: student survey (conducted by the School and the University via the intranet, some results made available to the HEFC as part of the National Student Survey); internal moderation (conducted by the School and the University by internal moderators); external moderation (conducted by External Examiners). The student survey constitutes the end-of course review. A synopsis of the exams and grading, and their evaluation is provided by the Subject Assessment Panel (SAP) report. The SAP report also forms a longitudinal evaluation.

26. All evaluation mechanisms have produced very positive results. The HCI course is continuously updated to maintain its modernity, but the course is sufficiently stable to be enjoyable to teach. The students and moderators etc are consistently satisfied with the course each year. The most significant indicator is the number of students who would recommend the course to a friend (always a high percentage of around ninety per cent). The positive feedback further motivates still more effort to be put into the course and the students. Providing one course for all students on three programmes (CS, IS, and MM) has resulted in a better, more rounded course with students from each programme positively contributing their own perspectives to the course.