Basis for Assessment
Assessment will be based on the following, weighted
as indicated.
- Small assignments applying practical
skills to sample problems (10%).
- Examinations on theoretical and practical knowledge of human-computer
interaction (40%)
- Quality of design projects, including
written documentation as well as the interface design itself
(40%). See the Projects page for further discussion.
- Participation in online
discussions (10%). See further comments below.
Examinations relate primarily to the concepts covered
in the syllabus, while the other elements relate to the skills and
techniques taught.
Individuals differ in their willingness and
ability to participate in class discussions. Some students
may be shy, or may not think of their points quick enough to
bring them up in a timely manner in classroom discussion. (English
as a second language is especially a factor here.) The online environment
offers more equitable opportunities for all to participate, as
you need not claim your "turn" in an online discussion
and have plenty of time to compose your contribution and check
it for presentation errors.
It is important that we create an
environment in which everyone feels free to speak up. Critiques
of ideas or designs are welcome but should be offered in a
helpful tone. Personal attacks are not appropriate, and personal
issues should be taken up face-to-face or via private email.
Participation is judged by the sincerity and substantiality
of the contribution towards collaborative inquiry (the group posing questions and building its collective knowledge base together). Asking good questions is just as much of a contribution
as giving opinions or answers, provided the questions come out
of thought and effort rather than lazyness. Of course, deep insights
are valuable and will be credited, but sincere effort to move
the discussion forward will be to your credit.
Although a point-based system is "not the point," I've
found that providing guidlines in these terms helps students
gauge their level of participation. I use the following scheme
to summarize a students' contribution to online discussions:
0 points for contributions that do not add value ("I agree",
etc.); 1 point for minimial contributions (restating what someone
else said, etc.); 2 points for contributions such as a position
or critique presented with some justification, or evidence presented
with an implication; and 3+ points for particularly insightful
or well argued contributions. Points are deducted for abusing
other students. As a rough guideline, individuals who attain
8 points a week receive 100% credit for participation.
Grading Scale
I will guarantee grades on the following scale
(percentage of points):
| A+ |
100 |
97 |
| A |
96 |
93 |
| A- |
92 |
89 |
| B+ |
88 |
85 |
| B |
84 |
81 |
| B- |
80 |
77 |
| C+ |
76 |
73 |
| C |
72 |
69 |
| C- |
68 |
65 |
| D+ |
64 |
61 |
| D |
60 |
57 |
| D- |
56 |
53 |
| F |
Below 53 |
|
If in my judgment students are not getting the
grades they deserve, I reserve the right to expand some grade categories
to 5 point spreads.
I should point out that the 10% for participation
makes a full letter grade difference. Every semester I am amazed
at how many students are willing to drop a full letter grade just
because they don't
want to bother participating in online or classroom discussions.
It's your choice.
Cheating and Plagiarism
I am obliged to inform you that any cheating or plagarism, including:
- using unauthorized materials during an exam
- presenting
someone
else's work as if it were your own
- presenting work you conducted for another purpose as if it is were new work for this course (self-plagarism)
will result in failure on the
exam or assignment and possibly the course. Unfortunately
I have had to demonstrate my willingness
to enact such sanctions more than once in the past. In at least
one case the student's cheating resulted in failure to obtain
the degree.
Pau
|