Investigation 11: Advanced Topics Presentation & Critical Response

Due dates / Submitting your work.

You will give a presentation and lead a discussion in class on November 30, December 2, or December 7, as assigned.

You will submit a short critical response paper in class on one of these dates (your choice).

Preparation

Before starting this assignment, it is suggested that you (re)read:

Jennifer Raff (August 25, 2013). How to read and understand a scientific paper. Violent Metaphors.

Collaboration

You will develop your presentation and discussion questions in groups of 2-3 (not necessarily your project team). You will choose dates, topics, and partners via a Google spreadsheet to be linked here.

You will write your critical response paper alone. You may obtain feedback on the paper from anyone you like, but the ideas and interpretation should be your own.

Grading: This assignment will be graded out of 40 points: 20 points per component. Criteria are provided below.

Overview

In this investigation, you become the teacher. The goal of this is to give you experience thinking, speaking, and writing critically about future interfaces and/or the social implications of UI design. In this assignment you will critically respond to a research paper, identify key points for discussion, and organize and lead class discussion.

Article selection

I have provided a selection of CHI 2015 Best Paper award winners for you to choose from (see below). My selection is intended to highlight important social issues and cutting-edge interaction techniques.

Reading journal

For the paper you select, you will prepare a presentation / class discussion. For a second paper, you will write a short critical response essay. Details for both appear below.

For the papers you are not presenting or writing an essay upon, you will complete a short journal entry that answers the following two prompts:

In 1-2 sentences, explain your most favorite idea from this paper and why you chose that idea. [prioritization, translation]
In 1-2 sentences, explain your least favorite idea from this paper and why you chose that idea. [prioritization, translation]

Presentation (20 points)

You will lead a 30-minute class discussion of your chosen research paper. Leaidng discussion involves preparing a short presentation on the assigned readings, as well as steering the class discussion of these readings. You should expect to do some additional background reading and research to prepare to lead class discussion.

Your goal in leading discussion will be similar to your goal in writing a critical response (see below). You should think about the same issues in preparing your presentation.

Plan on the following schedule for your presentation:

~5 minutes: Introduce the paper and general background
20-25 minutes: Lead discussion on the paper
~5 minutes: Peer feedback

In your presentation, you should spend a few minutes going over the papers' background (key prior work, what else the authors have worked on) and identifying the main points of the papers (problem, solution, evaluation, contribution). Don't spend too much time here. This part can be boring as your peers have read the paper already. If you can, try to find a video or provide some additional perspective on the work that wasn't in the paper itself.

You should spend most of your allotted time getting the class to discuss how the papers relate to UI/UX concepts we have been talking about. You will want to have prepared a number of discussion questions designed to get an interesting conversation started. This task is not easy and will require significant thought and plannign. Here are some ideas/guidelines for making your discussion go well:

When you think of a question, ask yourself, "How would I answer this question? Is it interesting to think about?" If you have no answer or think the question is boring, then so will your peers.
Avoid questions that have only one reasonable answer. There should be (at least) two perspectives; otherwise it's not really a discussion. Try discussing the question with your group and see if you can each take a side and defend it.
Along the same lines, avoid leading questions where you bias the class into answering one way or the other. For example, consider the question, "Do you really think they could learn anything from just five users in their study?" This question will not lead to good discussion because you've already told what you think is the right answer.
Think about incorporating an activity that illustrates the ideas in the papers. For example, once a student brought some clay and asked the class to design tangible UI widgets.
The more specific your questions, the better. Avoid the following too-general questions (although it's okay to ask more specific versions of them):

What was good/bad about these interfaces?
What did you think of the user study?
How could the authors improve their work?

It's okay to begin with some more general warm-up questions. For example, you might ask people to share what they wrote in their reading journals, or ask them to comment on some aspect of the work. However, you should move towards more specific questions (see above).
Make sure you actually talk about the paper you read. One of the most common presentation mistakes is to go off on too many tangents and spend little or no time actually talking about the work we all read. The majority of your presentation/discussion should directly relate to the ideas in the paper.
Finally, make sure you read the presentation grading rubric and score yourself according to this rubric. If you do everything the rubric tells you to do, you should get a good grade on the presentation.

Prepare your presentation in advance. Slides are encouraged but not required. Practice with your group before you present to the class. You are invited to meet with Janet to go over your presentation any time before hand. If you'd like, I can also bring your classmates' reading journal responses to you before class.

Critical response (20 points)

You will also individually write a 1-2 page critical response to a second paper (not the one you present). Your response should go beyond simply summarizing the paper to critically evaluate the work and relate it to other ideas from this class. Be specific!

In writing your response, keep in mind the context in which the paper was written. Find out who the authors are and what else they have done. You don't have to explicitly mention this information in your response (you can if appropriate), but it can help you put the contribution or other aspects of the paper into context.

Take a position on one or more of the papers' main contributions and then defend that position with specific support from the paper and other readings for this class, in light of the points above.

Exactly what you address in your critical response is up to you, but you should be sure that your response is well-structured and clearly addresses salient and interesting points related to this class.

Print your critical response paper and turn it in during class.

Assessment

Presentation (20 points)

Content: _______ of 3 points: 0 = Did not convey any significant content from the paper or the class.; 1 = Covered the material in the paper and/or class, but not critically (i.e., it was more of a summary), or did not make links between class material and paper.; 2 = Critically considered ideas in the paper and related them to ideas from class.; 3 = Did everything from 2, and also incorporated material from the paper's references or other background research.
Discussion:______ of 3 points: 0 = No or almost no interesting points identified.; 1 = Discussed authors’ points, but did not go beyond.; 2 = Discussion based in authors’ points, but posed a few provocative questions beyond the authors’ points OR Posed many engaging questions but discussion was tangential to/did not tie into the content of the papers.; 3 = Posed many engaging, provocative questions that extend the authors’ ideas and opinions. Used authors’ points mainly as a skeleton for discussion, but focused clearly on the content from the paper.
Organization: ______ of 2 points: 0 = No clear organization.; 1 = Some organization, perhaps around the structure of the paper. Flow may wander a bit.; 2 = Clearly organized around central points. Breaks away from the structure of the paper.

Style: _______ of 2 points:

0 = Appears unrehearsed and unpolished. Little class involvement.

1 = Mostly smooth with some stumbles. Speaking clear, but tentative and/or too quiet. Class involvement flows well at times, but is sometimes awkward.

2 = Rehearsed, professional and confident presentation. Class involvement flows well most of the time.

Instructor feedback: ____________ out of 10

Peer feedback: _______ out of 10

Total: ____________ out of 20

Critical response (20 points)

Critical perspective: ____________ of 1 point: Well-focused, clear position, not overly negative (simply bashes the paper) or positive (too rah-rah).
Relationship to class topics: ____________ of 2 points: 0 = no relation to class topics; 1 = superficial/tangential relation to class topics; 2 = analysis centered around/strongly supported by class topics
Quality of analysis: ____________ of 3 points: 0 = no analysis present; 1 = weak analysis: only shallow ideas, or ideas from paper do not support analysis topic well; 2 = intermediate analysis: deep ideas and specific examples from one paper included, ideas/examples moderately support the analysis topic; 3 = strong analysis: deep ideas and specific examples, ideas/examples make a clear case for analysis topic
Organization: ____________ of 2 points: 0 = No clear organization. Thesis statement and topic sentences weak or missing. Paragraphs do not adhere to topic.; 1 = Weak organization. Paragraphs generally address a single topic, but may wander. Thesis sentence may be missing or weak. Weak flow.; 2 = Strong organization. Clear flow, good structure.
Writing style: ____________ of 2 points: 0 = Multiple grammar/spelling mistakes. Unnecessary wordiness. Many sentence structure problems.; 1 = Few grammar/spelling mistakes. Some wordiness. Few sentence structure problems.; 2 = (Almost) No grammar/spelling errors. Clear, concise writing.

Subtotal: ____________ x 2

Total: ____________ out of 20

Articles

Affordance++: Allowing Objects to Communicate Dynamic Use: Pedro Lopes, Patrik Jonell, Patrick Baudisch; Affordance++ allows everyday objects to communicate dynamic use: motion (spray can shakes when touched), multi-step processes (peeling an avocado), and behaviors that change over time (don't grab the hot cup by its body!).
iSkin: Flexible, Stretchable and Visually Customizable On-Body Touch Sensors for Mobile Computing: Martin Weigel, Tong Lu, Gilles Bailly, Antti Oulasvirta, Carmel Majidi, Jürgen Steimle; iSkin is a soft-matter touch sensor for on-body input. The thin and elastic sensor film is customizable in shape and visual appearance. It enables novel types of skin-worn devices.
Acoustruments: Passive, Acoustically-Driven, Interactive Controls for Handheld Devices: Gierad Laput, Eric Brockmeyer, Scott E Hudson, Chris Harrison; Acoustruments adds a new method to the rapid-prototyping toolbox HCI practitioners and researchers can draw upon, while introducing a cheap and passive method for adding interactive controls to consumer products.
BaseLase: An Interactive Focus+Context Laser Floor: Jörg Müller, Dieter Eberle, Constantin Schmidt; BaseLase is an interactive laser floor display. BaseLase covers a very large projection area (75m2) with a low resolution context projector, while it provides three movable high-resolution focus spots.
ColourID: Improving Colour Identification for People with Impaired Colour Vision: David R Flatla, Alan R Andrade, Ross D Teviotdale, Dylan L Knowles, Craig Stewart; Presents three new colour identification techniques that help people with impaired colour vision rapidly identify challenging colours with almost 100% accuracy.
Sharing is Caring: Assistive Technology Designs on Thingiverse: Erin Buehler, Stacy Branham, Abdullah Ali, Jeremy J Chang, Megan K Hofmann, Amy Hurst, Shaun K Kane; This study examines open-sourced fabrication designs for assistive technology on Thingiverse.com and offers a description of the currently available designs, designer demographics, and strategies for diversifying this population in future.
Unequal Representation and Gender Stereotypes in Image Search Results for Occupations: Matthew Kay, Cynthia Matuszek, Sean A Munson; We explore the current state of gender portrayals in image search results, finding evidence for stereotyping and misrepresentation. We discuss several competing design goals for representation in search algorithm design.
Sangeet Swara: A Community-Moderated Voice Forum in Rural India: Aditya Vashistha, Edward Cutrell, Gaetano Borriello, William Thies; Describes a vibrant community that emerged on an interactive voice forum in rural India. Shows that voice forums can be moderated by their own users, just like popular Internet websites.
Tiree Energy Pulse: Exploring Renewable Energy Forecasts on the Edge of the Grid: Will Simm, Maria Angela Ferrario, Adrian Friday, Peter Newman, Stephen Forshaw, Mike Hazas, Alan Dix; Alongside Tiree islanders we investigated technologies for synchronising energy consumption with supply, co-developing a local renewable energy forecast display. We present the results and the findings arising from this process.
The Social Impact of a Robot Co-Worker in Industrial Settings: Allison Sauppé, Bilge Mutlu; We present results from a field study at three manufacturing sites examining the social relationship between a collaborative manufacturing robot and human workers.
“I always assumed that I wasn’t really that close to [her]”: Reasoning about invisible algorithms in the news feed: Motahhare Eslami, Aimee N Rickman, Kristen Vaccaro, Amirhossein Aleyasen, Andy Vuong, Karrie G Karahalios, Kevin Hamilton, Christian Sandvig; In an algorithm awareness study on Facebook News Feed, most users were unaware of the feed curation. We found that with more algorithm knowledge, users engaged more with their feed.
From User-Centered to Adoption-Centered Design: A Case Study of an HCI Research Innovation Becoming a Product: Parmit K Chilana, Andrew J Ko, Jacob Wobbrock; Investigates the transition of an HCI research innovation to a commercial product and highlights the tradeoffs in addressing end user concerns versus the needs of product adopters and stakeholders.

Janet Davis (davisj@whitman.edu)

Created November 12, 2015
Last revised November 16, 2015

Acknowledgments: All parts previously adapted by Jim Boerkel at Harvey Mudd College from an assignment by Christine Alvarado.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.