Department of Computer & Information Sciences

ASSESSMENT BRIEF
Module Title: Human-Computer Interaction
Module Code: KV5003
Academic Year / Semester: 2021-22 / Semester 1
Module Tutor / Email (all queries): Andy Dow / [email protected]
% Weighting (to overall module): 100%
Assessment Title: Individual Research Portfolio
Date of Handout to Students: 27th September 2021

Mechanism for Handout: Module Blackboard Site

Portfolio Items 1-4 (including all appendices and
Deadline for Attempt Submission by reference list) should be submitted by Week 12,
Students:
Thursday 16th December 2021, 23:59 GMT.
Mechanism for Submission: Document upload to Module Blackboard Site
Please upload your portfolio as a single PDF document.
Your portfolio (Items 1-4) should not exceed 3,000
Submission Format / Word Count
words in length (excluding title page, table of contents,
reference list and appendices).
Date by which Work, Feedback and
20 working days
Marks will be returned:
Mark and individual written feedback will be uploaded
Mechanism for return of Feedback and
to the Module Site on Blackboard. For further queries
Marks:
please email module tutor.

LEARNING OUTCOMES
The learning outcomes (LOs) for this module are: -
LO1 Demonstrate knowledge and critical understanding of user needs, capacities, and
limitations in multiple contexts of technology use and across technology platforms.
LO2 Demonstrate knowledge and critical understanding of interface design principles,
theories, techniques, and technologies
LO3 Demonstrate knowledge and critical understanding of the human factors of
cybersecurity
LO4 Analyse, design, prototype and evaluate, secure interactive computing technologies
LO5 Demonstrate critical engagement with contemporary HCI research (e.g., recent research
papers)

This assessment addresses learning outcomes LO1, LO2, LO3, LO4 and LO5.

1
Contents 2

Assessment Overview 3

Learning Outcomes 3

Relation to Module Activities/Indicative Schedule 3

Activities and Criteria 3

Marking Scheme 7

Submission Format/Requirements 8

Assessment Regulations 9

Opportunities for Formative and Final Feedback 10

Individual Portfolio Grade Descriptor 10

2
Assessment Overview
For this module, summative assessment is by a single in-course assessment, which is worth 100% of
the final module mark. This is an INDIVIDUAL assessment that aims to give an overview and practical
exposure to the user-centred design lifecycle, requirements capture methods, usability heuristics
and evaluation practices.

Learning Outcomes
The learning activities, tasks, criteria and marking scheme have all been aligned to a set of module
learning outcomes (please see above), which in turn map onto relevant programme learning
outcomes (please refer to your Programme Handbook for details).

Relation to Module Activities/Indicative Schedule

The flipped classroom materials (which includes short online video lectures) and online live seminars
will provide insight into UCD methods, tools, and techniques along with various research areas
within HCI which should help broaden your understanding and provide you with a number of areas
from which you might develop your discussion and rationale for the technology you design and
evaluate. The practical sessions (i.e., on-campus workshops) will provide hands on experience to
understand what work is done within Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and the skills and
techniques of user research.

You will develop your individual research portfolio (including written elements) through the practical
sessions (i.e., on-campus workshops) and during independent learning as you work through stages of
material. You will receive formative feedback in the workshop practical classes.

We will also provide practical sessions which specifically focus on how to write reports, carry out
literature searches, and best practice for citing references.

Activities and Criteria

The key tasks and activities for this assessment are outlined below. Please ensure you use the
criteria given in the mark scheme and assessment criteria-marking grid below to ensure your work
addresses the necessary requirements and ask your tutors in classes if you are unsure about
anything.

Following a user-centred design lifecycle, you will motivate, plan, design and evaluate a new
technology of your choosing*. You are expected to research a particular topic (the domain or
context within which your technology is designed to be used e.g., health, education, employment, e-
commerce, etc.) and motivate your new technology design (e.g., a wellbeing mobile app, that helps

3
users track and support their wellbeing) through reference to relevant research including the field
of Human-Computer Interaction. We are adopting a project-based learning approach, meaning that
you will have the opportunity to design, prototype and evaluate your technology through the
practical (workshop) sessions.

*A new technology of your choosing—to guide you in this choice you must determine:

1. What form the technology will take (What is it?)

For this we strongly recommend that you design either:

 A web application for use on a desktop computer

 A smartphone application for use on your choice of operating system

 A smartwatch application

 A smart-home device with a screen such as Google Nest Hub

Your proposed technology may interact in some way with other digital devices such as health
monitoring technologies or IoT devices, but the focus of your design work should be the app itself
and not the remote technology. For example, your app could be used to configure the behaviour of a
‘smart’ food bowl for dogs and in this case you would report the design of the companion app and
not the remotely connected dog bowl.

2. The purpose of your technology (What does it do?)

For this you will have to decide what the technology/app will be used for, so in the above example
it would be used to configure the features of the ‘smart’ food bowl. This may require the user having
to create and account, inputting information about their dog. It may also include designing in
features to track the health of the user’s dog or ways of tracking and visualising how much food is
being consumed. All of these user needs will be determined by (and justified through) the user-
centred design process.

3. The domain or context in which your technology will be used (Where does it get used?)
There are many domains/contexts that you may wish to consider and partly this will be guided by
the purpose of the technology. It is recommended that it is something that you have an interest in as
this should make the project more enjoyable and help you be more creative. For the above example
the domain would be pet health, pet tracking and care. There are many domains where technology
may get used: Health (both personal health tracking and in clinical settings like hospitals); Education
(In classroom or remote study); Sustainability (tracking food waste, participating in urban farming);
remote working and the gig economy. This is not an exhaustive list and we are happy for you to
select from these or propose your own. Having a domain that is a good match for the purpose of
your technology will help you justify the motivation for designing the technology in the first place. It
should give you new ideas and lots of existing research on which you can build your own ideas.

We will work through the coursework in stages through the practical sessions, so it is vital that you
attend as many of them as possible. As we work through the user-centred design lifecycle, you will
4
document your progress as you go through the semester – the artefacts you produce will form the
basis of your individual research portfolio.

You will also be expected to conduct independent research, by way of reviewing relevant academic
literature, in support of your approach and design.

This will culminate in a research portfolio which includes your final technology design and the
process followed, as well as any supporting designs, evaluations and documents created throughout
this process.

Details of how to prepare the research portfolio will be available on Blackboard.

Throughout the module there will be opportunities for formative feedback of elements of your
research portfolio from both tutors and peers. With that comes an expectation that you will also
provide formative feedback to your peers.

The portfolio deliverables are as follows:

Written Portfolio Items 1-4: (3000 words):

1. Introduction (technology, domain and purpose).
2. Literature Review.
3. Design Process and Final Design.
4. Evaluation, Reflection and Conclusions.

UCD Artefacts (whilst not directly marked these must be used to support
Portfolio Items 3-4; please include in appendices and cite accordingly within
items 3-4)
 A complete list of required artefacts will be supplied as a separate
checklist; please ensure you access this via Blackboard and use the
classes and your independent study time to complete the UCD activities
as the module progresses.
 All UCD artefacts should be included as a set of appendices in the final
submission.

Each of these deliverables will now be expanded upon to give further direction and an indication of
what is expected.

Item 1. Introduction (technology, domain & purpose):

This should provide clarity as to what you are designing (e.g., a smartphone app, a desktop app), the
domain or context in which it will be used (e.g., health, education, the workplace, etc.) and what its
purpose is (e.g., to track a healthier diet). Be sure to motivate your work through a clear link to
existing research on the topic drawn from the field of Human-Computer Interaction and other

5
domain specific sources; highlight the current state of the art in this domain; and provide an
overview of the approach you’ve taken i.e., the user-centred design work carried out to reach your
final design / technology.

Item 2. Literature Review:

In more depth and detail than the introduction, you must demonstrate your understanding of the
contemporary challenges and technologies in this domain. This will be achieved by introducing and
critically reflecting on both academic research publications and reviews of industrial technologies
and reports. Through this you should motivate and justify the reason for your technology existing in
the first place.

Importantly, you must seek to identify the emerging trends or open challenges that you uncover in
your literature review and relate those to your own work. So, try to always say what you have
learned from each of your sources and describe the concrete implications for your design. E.g.
‘Commonly fitness apps do/ do not include wellbeing features, therefore this project aims to address
this by…’

Item 3. Design Process and Final Design:

This should describe the evolution of your technology through the various design artefacts produced
on a weekly basis throughout the work done in the classroom. These should be included in the
appendices and referenced appropriately from the report. E.g. ‘From the persona of Lucy (Appendix
B1) we see that eating healthily is important for her wellbeing’. Try to report the design process step
by step, summarising what was learned from each stage and how that was applied into the next
stage to clearly communicate how the design evolved through the user-centred approach.

Give a description of the final design arrived at from following the different stages of the user-
centred design lifecycle and the artefacts produced throughout the module.

Item 4. Evaluation, Reflections/Conclusions

Report on the study design and the results of your evaluation of the TAP* study conducted using the
high-fidelity prototype of the final design. Try to draw out what you learned from having a user(s)
engage with your prototype and honestly evaluate the features of your technology. Are there some
that did or did not work in the way you expected? Perhaps there are some you would remove given
the chance or keep but alter in a particular way.

Interpret your results and reflect on how well your proposed and evaluated technology fits with the
domain in which you are working and how well (or not) it fits the intended purpose.

Be critical and honest about your technology, we are interested to hear about the process more than
anything. So, is there anything that you would do differently, either in the design process or with the
features of the technology itself? Explain what you would recommend for future, similar
technologies and say why.

6
*TAP = Think Aloud Protocol, an evaluation method we will cover on the module.

References

A full list of references used within the portfolio should be provided. The Harvard style of referencing
should be applied throughout the portfolio. See the online resource called Cite them Right for
further details of Harvard referencing techniques (note; you will need your University username and
password to access this resource which can be found at http://www.citethemrightonline.com).

UCD Artefacts (Included as Appendices)

Guided by the activities carried out in the practical sessions, include your user-centred design
artefacts such as early designs, prototypes and evaluation documents in appendices to support
Items 3-4.

Marking Scheme
Criteria associated with each activity/task are listed above; please refer to Marking Criteria Guidance
(below) for advice on how marking will be applied.

Components Marks
Portfolio Items 1-4 0-100
1. Introduction (technology, domain, and purpose) 0-10
Clarity, relevance, and justification. Overview of approach.
2. Literature review 0-30
Review of academic literature and industrial / technology-
related sources which are robust (i.e., good quality),
relevant (i.e., to the technology problem/challenge) and
timely (i.e., contemporary).
Clarity, cohesion, and completeness.
3. Design Process & Final Design 0-30
Relevant and appropriate description of the evolution of
technology design.
Complete final design which clearly attempts to address the
technology problem/challenge.
Use of supporting evidence contained in appendices in the
form of artefacts arising from a user-centred design
lifecycle.

7
 4. Evaluation, Reflections & Conclusions 0-25
Relevant and appropriate evaluation of technology designs.
Clearly presented evaluation results with appropriate
interpretation.
Quality and completeness of reflection on
proposed/evaluated technology in relation to identified
problem/challenge.
Quality and relevance of conclusions.
Structure & Presentation (including appendices) 0-5
Presentation and layout. Professional, formal tone.
Grammar and spelling. References and citation technique.
TOTAL (%) 100

Submission Format/Requirements
Please note, the intention is to mark these assessments anonymously so do not include your name
anywhere in the documents provided if you want anonymous marking to take place.

For Portfolio Items 1-4

 Items should be written in the third person without use of personal pronouns (for example,
no use of ‘I, me, my, our, we, they’).
 Only Microsoft Word (.docx) or PDF (.pdf) file formats will be accepted.
 Layout for these items should make reasonable use of margins, clear headings and the font
size should be 10-12pt (depending on choice of font), preferably using a Sans-Serif typeface
although you may use a Serif-based font should you wish.
 Please include table of contents, page numbers, the module code and your student ID
(these do not count towards the word counts for each item) in the portfolio and make use of
headings mapped onto the portfolio requirements detailed above.
 A 3000 word limit has been specified for Items 1-4:
o If the assignment is within +10% of the stated word limit no penalty will apply.
o The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment and the
assignment cover sheet.
o The word count does not include title page, table of contents, interaction
framework, reference list, bibliography and appendices. Please note, in text citations
[e.g. (Smith, 2011)] and direct secondary quotations [e.g. “dib-dab nonsense
analysis” (Smith, 2011 p.123)] are INCLUDED in the word count.
o The full Word Limit Policy is available here.
 Please include the final design artefacts as appendices to your submission. You may also
include them on your university OneDrive and provide a link should you wish.

8
  Acceptable file formats for prototypes will be confirmed via classes so please ensure you
check with the tutor at the point of approval and feedback.
 Blank consent forms should be included in the appendix, completed consent forms should
be stored securely and destroyed in accordance with the university’s ethical research
practice policy.
 Students must retain an electronic copy of this assessment (including ALL components and
appendices) and it must be made available within 24 hours of a request to provide it.
 Referencing should be in the Harvard style (see Cite Them Right available at
http://www.citethemrightonline.com). Please note; you will need your University Student ID
and password to access this resource.

Assessment Regulations
You are advised to read the guidance for students regarding assessment policies. They are available
online here. (http://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/university-services/academic-registry/
quality-and-teaching-excellence/assessment/guidance-for-students/)

Late submission of work

Where coursework is submitted without approval, after the published hand-in deadline, the
following penalties will apply.

 For coursework submitted up to 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in
deadline without approval, 10% of the total marks available for the assessment (i.e.,100%)
shall be deducted from the assessment mark.
 Coursework submitted more than 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in
deadline without approval will be regarded as not having been completed. A mark of zero
will be awarded for the assessment and the module will be failed, irrespective of the
overall module mark.

The full policy can be found here.

Academic Misconduct

In all assessed work you should take care to ensure that the work you submit is your own. The
University takes academic dishonesty and cheating very seriously, and it is your responsibility to
ensure that you don’t attempt to cheat or become victim to cheating.

There are many different forms of academic misconduct or ‘cheating’.  Plagiarism is the most
common and both the University library and your academic tutors are able to provide further
guidance on proper citation and referencing in your assessed work.

 The full Academic Misconduct Policy is available here.

 Useful guidance for avoiding academic misconduct can be found here.
9
Remember, this is an INDIVIDUAL assessment and should be entirely your own work. Where you
have used someone else’s words (quotations), they should be correctly quoted and referenced in
accordance to the Harvard. Help regarding referencing and guidance on avoiding plagiarism can be
found in the Study Skills section of the module site on Blackboard.

Opportunities for Formative and Final Feedback

During each taught session, formative discussions will occur on how the learning undertaken can
both support and evidence successfully meeting the learning outcomes. The classes provide
opportunities for formative feedback throughout and to help answer any queries you may have.

Outside of the taught classes or if you have been unable to attend, you may contact the tutor team
via email using our dedicated module email address [email protected]. We ask
that you use this email address rather than contacting staff individually since tutor availability varies
each week and they may not be able to answer straight away. Please note, we will NOT however, be
able to review drafts of your research portfolio before submission.

Unmoderated marks and summative feedback for the assessment will be returned within four
working weeks after the final submission deadline (see cover sheet for details).

Please use the classes and surgery sessions for clarification, guidance
and support on any aspect relating to this assessment.

Individual Portfolio Grade Descriptor

The following grade descriptor is used in the marking of the individual portfolios. The descriptions
for each category are intended as a ‘best fit’. It is inevitable that some portfolios will have
characteristics of more than one of the descriptions, or that not all aspects of any one description
are met, in which case academic judgement is used to assign a mark based on the overall quality of
the work.

Class Mark Criteria for Portfolio Overall

Range
Fail 0 – 15 Very little material: or irrelevant or incomprehensible material which fails
to address the brief. Evident misunderstandings about user research and
design. Most sections nonsensical or absent. Major weaknesses evident
throughout.
Fail 16 – 29 Wholly unsatisfactory, little or no evidence of preparation, analytical or
evaluative skills. No evidence of understanding of the material or ability to
structure or present material. Hastily thrown together. Incomplete or
insubstantial piece of work which fails to address the brief. Evident
misunderstandings about user research and design. Large sections

10
 nonsensical or absent. Major weaknesses evident.
 User research, planning and requirements specification is wholly
inadequate OR is nonsensical OR absent.
 Ideation, design, and prototyping is wholly inadequate OR is
nonsensical OR absent.
 User evaluation planning and reporting is wholly inadequate OR is
nonsensical OR absent.
 Professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling is wholly inadequate OR is nonsensical
OR absent.
Fail 30 – 34 Unsatisfactory. Lacking evidence of preparation, evaluative or reflective
skills. Largely irrelevant. Little or no understanding. Expression / style /
grammar / presentation very poor. Hardly any, or no, evidence of reading /
organisation. Portfolio has flaws and/or is not complete. Some sections
present but partially incoherent, evident misunderstandings about user
research and design. Several obvious weaknesses.
 User research, planning and requirements specification is not
sufficiently adequate.
 Ideation, design, and prototyping is not sufficiently adequate.
 User evaluation planning and reporting is not sufficiently
adequate.
 Professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling is wholly inadequate OR is nonsensical
OR absent.
Fail 34 – 39 Bare fail. Little or no reading at an appropriate level. Some material of
relevance but with major omissions and errors. Generally unsatisfactory
but with redeeming features. e.g., some evidence of preparation, some
limited understanding, some reflective thought. Portfolio has flaws and/or
is not complete. Some sections present but partially incoherent. Several
obvious weaknesses.
 User research, planning and requirements specification is not
sufficiently adequate.
 Ideation, design, and prototyping is not sufficiently adequate
 User evaluation planning and reporting is not sufficiently
adequate.
 Professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling is not sufficiently adequate.
Pass 40 - 44 Bare pass. Some relevant material, few or no relevant examples. Little or
no attempt to relate this to the question. Very little reading. Many
unsubstantiated remarks. Naïve i.e., simplistic and lacks control/awareness
of the subject material and reflective thought. Referencing poor. Limited
understanding. Lacks a structure. Material not well organised. Portfolio
has some limitations and is not entirely clear, however, most sections are
adequately produced. Some obvious weaknesses.
 Adequate user research, planning and requirements specification.
 Adequate ideation, design, and prototyping.

11
  Adequate User evaluation planning and reporting.
 Professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling is not sufficiently adequate.
3rd 45 - 49 Weak. Argument obscure, weak or unbalanced. Only partially relevant. Has
major omissions. Some understanding, reflection, structure and
referencing. Partially successful attempt to use relevant examples and
facts. Some reading. Conclusions weak. Portfolio has some limitations and
is not entirely clear, however, most sections are adequately produced.
Some obvious weaknesses.
 Adequate user research, planning and requirements specification.
 Adequate ideation, design, and prototyping.
 Adequate User evaluation planning and reporting.
 Adequate professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling.
Lower 50 - 54 An adequate piece of work which shows some structure, relevant use of
2.ii examples and evidence of background reading. Some limited referencing.
Limited evidence of independent thought and the development of a
substantiated argument. Conclusions not well developed. Portfolio
communicates reasonably (with some limitations) showing in some
portfolio sections but satisfactory quality in most.
 Satisfactory user research, planning and requirements
specification.
 Satisfactory ideation, design, and prototyping.
 Satisfactory User evaluation planning and reporting.
 Adequate professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling.
Uppe 55 - 59 A competent piece of work which shows reasonable understanding of the
r 2.ii material and presents it satisfactorily with appropriate examples and
referencing. Structure is apparent and there is a coherent (though possibly
weak) argument with adequate conclusion. Evaluative/critical /analytical
skills present but not highly developed. No obvious weaknesses except a
lack of originality. Portfolio communicates reasonably (with some
limitations) showing in some portfolio sections but satisfactory quality in
most.
 Satisfactory user research, planning and requirements
specification.
 Satisfactory ideation, design, and prototyping.
 Satisfactory User evaluation planning and reporting.
 Satisfactory professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling.
Lower 60 - 64 A good piece of work. Shows a firm grasp of the majority of the relevant
2.i material. Argues well and effectively. Is able to criticise and evaluate
material. Well-structured and shows good evidence of wider background
reading.
Correctly and appropriately referenced. Some evidence of originality of
thought. Portfolio communicates clearly and effectively showing good

12
 quality in some portfolio sections.
 Good user research, planning and requirements specification.
 Good ideation, design, and prototyping.
 Good User evaluation planning and reporting.
 Good professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling.
Uppe 65 - 69 A very good piece of work. Demonstrates all the qualities of 60-64 level
r 2.i piece of work to a higher degree of development. Evidence of extensive
background reading beyond the materials suggested. Sustained argument
throughout. Portfolio communicates clearly and effectively showing
excellence in some sections but good quality in most.
 Good user research, planning and requirements specification.
 Good ideation, design, and prototyping.
 Good User evaluation planning and reporting.
 Good professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling.
Lower 70 - 79 An excellent piece of work. High level of understanding of all relevant
1st material with excellent, relevant use of referencing and examples.
Communicates clearly and effectively using a coherent structure showing
insight and perceptiveness. A commendable degree of academic
originality.
 Excellent user research, planning and requirements specification.
 Excellent ideation, design, and prototyping.
 Excellent user evaluation planning and reporting.
 Excellent professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling.
Uppe 80 - 89 An outstanding piece of work. Has total control of relevant material and
r 1st shows an excellent synthesis of factual and conceptual components. Work
of a very high order. Goes further/deeper than the requirements set and
shows signs of wider reading.
 Outstanding user research, planning and requirements
specification.
 Outstanding ideation, design, and prototyping.
 Outstanding User evaluation planning and reporting.
 Outstanding professional/formal presentation style and use of
English/grammar/spelling.
Uppe 90 - 100 A brilliant piece of work of outstanding quality and innovation. Has total
r 1st control of all relevant material. Shows outstanding insight and an ability to
structure and synthesise material. Work of the highest order. Goes
substantially further/deeper than the requirements set and shows signs of
substantial wider reading.
 Exemplary user research, planning and requirements specification.
 Exemplary ideation, design, and prototyping.
 Exemplary User evaluation planning and reporting.
 Exemplary professional/formal presentation style and use of

13
English/grammar/spelling.

14