COURSEWORK ASSESSMENT SPECIFICATION

Module Title: Human-Computer Interaction

Module Number: KV5003
Module Tutor: Marta Cecchinato
Academic Year: 2019-20
% Weighting (to overall module): 40%
Coursework Title: Group Portfolio presentation

Dates and Mechanisms for Assessment Submission and Feedback

Date of Handout to Students: Week commencing Monday 30th September 2019.
Mechanism for Handout to Students: via Blackboard.
Date and Time of Submission by Student: submit by 16:00 on Monday 9th December 2019
Mechanism for Submission of Work by Student: via Blackboard.
Date by which Work, Feedback and Marks will be returned to Students: 20 working days after
submission deadline.
Mechanism for return of assignment work, feedback and marks to students: via Blackboard/email.
 KV5003: Human-Computer Interaction

Group Portfolio Presentation

40% of Module Mark
September 2019

Module Tutor: Marta Cecchinato

Northumbria University
CIS Building, Rm 307

<marta.cecchinato@northumbria.ac.uk>

Contents
1
Assessment Overview............................................................................................................................3
Learning Outcomes................................................................................................................................3
Relation to Module Activities/Schedule................................................................................................3
Tasks......................................................................................................................................................3
Report Structure and Content...............................................................................................................4
Marking Scheme....................................................................................................................................4
Submission Format/Requirements........................................................................................................4
Opportunities for Formative and Final Feedback..................................................................................4
Academic Integrity.................................................................................................................................5
Assessment Criteria/Grade Descriptors.................................................................................................6

2
Assessment Overview
For this module there are two pieces of coursework, this is part 1. This GROUP assessment is worth
40% of your overall mark. You will be assigned to groups.

Through the practical classes you will design, prototype and evaluate a ‘new form of social media’.

We will work through the coursework in stages through the practical classes so it is vital that you
attend as many of them as possible. We will work through the user-centred design lifecycle and you
and your group will document your progress as you go through the term. This will culminate in a
presentation of your final product and the process followed, as well as and a portfolio of supporting
documents. Details of how to deliver the presentation will be available on Blackboard.

There will be peer assessment of your collaboration in this coursework – and you will rate each
other’s efforts in the team.

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

Module Learning Outcomes: the assessment covers all the learning outcomes for the module.
Students should be able to demonstrate achievement of the following.

Knowledge & Understanding:

[MLO2] Demonstrate knowledge and critical understanding of interface design principles, theories,
techniques and technologies

[MLO3] Demonstrate knowledge and critical understanding of the human factors of cybersecurity

Intellectual / Professional skills & abilities:

[MLO4] Analyse, design, prototype and evaluate, secure interactive computing technologies

Relation to Module Activities/Schedule

The practical sessions in the module will give you hands on experience to understand what work is
actually done within Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and the skills and techniques of user
experience design and evaluation. The supporting lectures will deeper your understanding of the
experiences in the practical sessions. You will develop your group report through the practical
sessions by building your portfolio as a group as you work through stages of material. You will
receive formative feedback in the practical classes.

Tasks
Practical classes during term time will map directly to coursework deliverables. There will be a
requirements as a group to maintain a progress log through the course as elements of the
coursework are completed. There are three main components with subcomponents that we will
work through.

User research (requirements engineering)

Plan
3
 User research analysis
Requirements specification

Design (Prototyping)
Ideation
Sketching
Low-fi

Evaluation (UX evaluation)

Plan
Reporting

Details of how to build your evidence portfolio will be given in the practical classes. You will receive
feedback as you progress through the tasks.

Notes and instructions for subcomponents e.g. the weekly practical tasks will be uploaded to
Blackboard as we progress through the term.

Presentation Structure and Content

Your presentation of the final product and the process followed will be 10 minutes long and will be
accompanied by a single PDF of supporting evidence. Details of how to deliver the presentation and
what to include in it and in the supporting evidence portfolio will be made available on Blackboard. A
template of the supporting evidence portfolio will be provided.

Marking Scheme
All elements of the coursework will be considered as equally weighted. And the group mark will be
determined based on criteria (see below) estimating the quality of the entire report. The peer
evaluation form will be used to assess your relative contributions to the group work and will be used
to weight your mark such that your final mark may be above or below the group mark depending on
your team’s assessment of your contribution to the whole project. Please note, this can vary your
mark substantially. If you do not contribute, you will fail this coursework.

If there are disputes around the peer evaluation then please discuss these with the Module Tutor
(Dr Marta Cecchinato).

Submission Format/Requirements
For this assessment:
 A 10-minute presentation of the final product and process followed
 A single PDF of the supporting evidence.
 Submitted online through Blackboard

Opportunities for Formative and Final Feedback

During each practical session, we will discuss groups’ progress on the coursework and we will
provide formative feedback on the evidence as it is being collected through the term.

4
Unmoderated marks and summative feedback for the assessment will be returned within four
working weeks after each the final submission deadline.

Please use the classes for clarification, guidance or

support on any aspect relating to this assessment.

Academic Integrity
You must adhere to the university regulations on academic conduct. Formal inquiry proceedings will
be instigated if there is any suspicion of plagiarism or any other form of misconduct in your work.
Refer to the University’s Assessment Regulations for Northumbria Taught Awards if you are unclear
as to the meaning of these terms. The latest copy is available on the University website.
 https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/-/media/corporate-website/new-sitecore-
gallery/services/academic-registry/documents/qte/assessment/guidance-for-
students/academic-regulations-for-taught-awards-2017-18.pdf

Failure to submit: The University requires all students to submit assessed coursework by the
deadline stated in the assessment brief.  Where coursework is submitted without approval after the
published hand-in deadline, penalties will be applied as defined in the University Policy on the Late
Submission of Work; please refer to the link below.
 https://northumbria-cdn.azureedge.net/-/media/corporate-website/new-sitecore-
gallery/services/academic-registry/documents/qte/assessment/guidance-for-
students/late-submission-of-work-and-extension-requests-policy_v2.pdf?
modified=20190619071234&la=en&hash=C112B22E14B9075D4E92C6A5842088F
7921BAAA4

Anonymous marking: University policy requires that work be marked anonymously. In order to
facilitate this, we request that only your group ID is included on work submitted.

Academic Misconduct Policy:

 https://northumbria-cdn.azureedge.net/-/media/corporate-website/new-sitecore-
gallery/services/academic-registry/documents/qte/assessment/guidance-for-
students/pl,-d-,005-v003-academic-misconduct-policy.pdf?
modified=20190605171211&la=en&hash=A55A56D5BAD5746FC530D31C6291B1
0F861275CE

5
Assessment Criteria/Grade Descriptors

REPORT:
Grade bands
100-90% On balance:
A brilliant piece of work of exemplary quality and innovation. Has total control of all relevant stages
of the user-centred design lifecycle. Shows exemplary insight and ability to structure and synthesise
user research and design reporting. 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
English/grammar/spelling.
89-80% On balance:
An outstanding piece of work. Has total control of all relevant stages of the user-centred design
lifecycle. Shows outstanding insight and ability to structure and synthesise user research and design
reporting. 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.
79-70% On balance:
An excellent piece of work. High level of understanding of all relevant aspects of user
research and design. Report communicates clearly and effectively showing excellence in
the majority of report sections. Show signs of reading suggested literature.
 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.
69-60% On balance:
A good piece of work. Clear understanding of all relevant aspects of user research and
design. Report communicates clearly and effectively showing excellence in some report
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
59-50% On balance:
A competent piece of work. Shows reasonable understanding of relevant aspects of user
research and design. Report communicates reasonably (with some limitations) showing in
some report 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

6
 English/grammar/spelling.
49-40% On balance:
An adequate piece of work. Shows elements of understanding of relevant aspects of user
research and design. Report 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.
39-30% On balance:
A weak piece of work, that shows some clear misunderstandings of user research and
design. Report 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.
29-0% On balance:
Incomplete or insubstantial piece of work which fails to address the coursework brief.
Evident misunderstandings about user research and design. Large sections 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.