ENGL 1301Week #6 Chapter 16 Profiles,” pages 191; 199-20.docx

ENGL 1301
Week #6
Chapter 16: “Profiles,” pages 191; 199-204. Write a profile of
a career that interests you.
6.1 Reading, Thinking, and Writing Assignments for Week
#6:
Read “Writing a Profile,” pages 191, especially “A Brief Guide
to Writing Profiles,” pages 199-204.
6.2 Writing Assignment for Week #6: Essay #3Profiling a
Career
a. Identify one or two people in a career that you are interested
in pursuing. Consider business people, teachers, nurses,
artists, police officers, accountants, computer programmers,
sales managers, etc.
b. Conduct personal interviews to find out how that person came
to be in that career, how that career has worked out, the
advantages and the disadvantages of being in that career, and
what, if anything, he or she plans to do next. Construct a list
of interview questions and take notes during the interview.
c. Check the Occupational Outlook Handbook for the career that
interests you. This book put out regularly by the government
contains fairly recent information about all types of jobs. Find
the job you have in mind and read the profile of the job as
presented in the OOH. You can google “Occupational Outlook
Handbook” to find the most recent edition.
d. In addition to the information in the OOH about the career
such as training, educational requirements, required
certification, availability of jobs, future outlook, working
conditions, pay, etc., see if you can find information about that
career in the DFW area.

e. Write a profile of that career that incorporates the
information you have gathered. To add interest in your essay,
you might include anecdotes from your interviewees to help
readers understand how they have arrived where they are now,
what is involved in pursuing that career, and whether they
would recommend the career to young people today.
Think of a targeted audience for your essay as well as your
purpose for
writing. Perhaps a friend or classmate has no idea what
career to pursue
and your essay will help acquaint him or her with your
career choice. Or
perhaps doing this assignment has helped you consider a
career that you had
not considered before and you are sharing that information
with others.
6.3Submit your essay as Essay # 3 (make your own appropriate
title)
by 11:55 p.m. on the due date posted in Blackboard.
Include a Works Cited page that lists the people you
interviewed and the
print or web sources that you used to learn more about
that career.
Note: An “essay” should be an organized writing with a
minimum of four
typed pages or more.
6.4Discussion Board for Week #6:
Go to the Discussions and post the concluding paragraph that
you have
written for Essay 3. Read the concluding paragraphs of

your classmates and
post a comment on at least one.
6.5 Grammar Study 6: Using Apostrophes Correctly
Read and Study Pages HB-75—78.
Objective: To recognize and correct apostrophe errors
sentences in your writing.
Besides the pages above in your textbook, there is online
instruction on
grammar and sentence structure under “Resources” on
the homepage.
Go back to Course Content to find the Grammar
Practice Quiz 6. If you do
not score at least a 24 (80%), re-study the material on
apostrophes.
Note: Apostrophe errors can create both misused words and
unclear
meaning in sentences, but with a little study and
practice you can learn to
spot apostrophe errors in your writing and correct them.
If you need one-on-one tutoring in these areas, consider
using one of the
Collin Writing Centers either online or on-site. See the
syllabus for
contact information.
6.6 Take “Grammar Unit Quiz 6: Apostrophes” by Sunday
evening

11:00 p.m.
www.anglia.ac.uk
Interaction and
Usability
1
Table of Contents
1. Key Information
...............................................................................................
...... 2
2. Introduction to the Module
............................................................................... ...... 2
3. Learning Outcomes and Outline Delivery
.............................................................. 3
4. Assessment
...............................................................................................
............ 4
5. Learning Resources
..............................................................................................
9

6. How is My Work Marked?
.................................................................................... 10
7. Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards
....................................................... 12
8. Attendance
...............................................................................................
........... 15
9. Assessment Offences
.......................................................................................... 15
10. Module Evaluation
.............................................................................................
18
11. Report on Last Delivery of Module
..................................................................... 18

2
1. Key Information
Module Title: Interaction and Usability
Module Leader: Arooj Fatima
Com 307, Cambridge Campus.
Extension:
Email: [email protected]
Module Tutor(s):
Elaine Brown Arooj Fatima
Campus / Building /
Room:
Lab 115 Com 307
Extension: 2746
Email: [email protected][email protected]
Every module has a Module Definition Form (MDF) which is
the officially validated record of the module.
You can access the MDF for this module in three ways via:
www.anglia.ac.uk/modulecatalogue

www.anglia.ac.uk/modules
All modules delivered by Anglia Ruskin University at its main
campuses in the UK and at Associate
Colleges throughout the UK and overseas are governed by the
Academic Regulations. You can view
these at www.anglia.ac.uk/academicregs. An extract of the
Academic Regulations, known as the
Assessment Regulations, is available at this website too (all
new students will have received a printed
copy as part of their welcome pack).
In the unlikely event of any discrepancy between the Academic
Regulations and any other publication,
including this module guide, the Academic Regulations, as the
definitive document, take precedence
over all other publications and will be applied in all cases.
2. Introduction to the Module
Developing effective human-computer interfaces is a vital area
of study. As such it is necessary to have
some understanding of a variety of fields including cognitive
psychology and usability theory which has
recently become a major issue in web design / effective e-
commerce implementation. The user
experience (beyond traditional usability) is a key design issue.
This module seeks to develop understanding of interaction
design through the delivery of core theory
which is then applied to the analysis, design, implementation
and evaluation of a limited functionality

horizontal prototype.
The student will be introduced to the notion of user mental
models (following the approach of Donald
Norman) and the extent to which they can be utilized in the
design of conceptual models underlying the
designed interface.
Students will then examine the range of discovery methods used
to harvest user, task and environmental
data to support user needs analysis comprising user
characterisation (including the notion of user
personae), task analysis (hierarchical task analysis / action and
object taxonomies ) and environmental
analysis.
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/modulecatalogue
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/modules
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/academicregs
3
Following a discussion of visual style / aesthetics, the preceding
analysis will then progress to
documented design rationale supporting by logical storyboards
showing information, action and
navigation screen components.
The design is then prototyped in a high level tool equivalent to
Visual Basic and subjected to critical
introspective and user evaluation. Note that students will be
expected to possess some scripting

experience prior to starting the module.
Students will document all the above to produce the final
assignment.
The module would be of considerable benefit to those who
intend to design interfaces (including web
design), become usability / testing consultants or work within
user training / user support roles.
3. Learning Outcomes and Outline Delivery
All modules at Anglia Ruskin modules are taught on the basis of
intended learning outcomes. On
successful completion of the module, students will be expected
to be able to demonstrate they have met
those outcomes. The specific Learning Outcomes for this
module are listed below. You will need to be
able to demonstrate each one of these in order to pass the
module.
On successful completion of this module you will be able to:
1. Define and apply relevant theory to the process of
determining a user needs analysis for a specific
target application.
2. Design a corresponding interface for target application,
justifying design decisions in terms of the
preceding user needs analysis, usability and psychological
theory.
3. Implement a limited functionality interface.

4. Critically evaluate the design prototype, including
introspective evaluation and user evaluation.
Note that the following schedule is indicative of the topics that
may be covered. Later weeks are dictated
by the progress of the cohort, and the research expertise of your
tutor. These topics will be within the
area of database design and implementation (cognitive domain)
and further facilitate attainment of
Learning Outcomes.
Wk Lecture Tutorial
1
Course overview: What is interaction design? Groups
2
Conceptualising interaction Activity - Conceptualising
interaction
3
Cognitive theory (understanding the users, mental
models)
Activity – User Models
4

Specific user, task, context Activity – User Need Analysis
5
Prototyping Activity - Prototyping
6
Introduction to evaluation Activity – Evaluation + Hand-in
Component
1
7
Visual design and information architecture Activity – Visual
Design
8
Explaining the assignment Assignment Support
9
The UX of an application Discuss Component 2
4

10
Analytical evaluation Work on Component 2
11
Design for positive affect and behavioural change Work on
Component 2
12
Review Review
4. Assessment
DESCRIPTIVE
TITLE
Coursework
Described on the coversheet as “Coursework:
3000 words”
Assessment
Element
010
ASSESSMENT
DETAILS
One document. Please see the Assessment Specification at 4.2

below.
Learning Outcomes
1, 2, 3, 4 Weighting 15% Marking
Approach
Fine Grade
WHAT IS BEING
SUBMITTED
One page.
SUBMISSION ‘Due’
Date:
Week 6 Time: Location Tutorial
Class
MARKER(S): Arooj Fatima
MODERATOR(S): Elaine Brown
FEEDBACK Where to get your
feedback:
Week 7 ‘Post’ Date: In Class
DESCRIPTIVE
TITLE
Coursework
Described on the coversheet as “Coursework:
3000 words”

Assessment
Element
010
ASSESSMENT
DETAILS
One document. A portfolio to include each sections listed in the
Assignment
Specification at 4.2 below.
Learning Outcomes
1, 2, 3, 4 Weighting 85% Marking
Approach
Fine Grade
WHAT IS BEING
SUBMITTED
One document to Turnitin. Single submission.
SUBMISSION ‘Due’
Date:
06/05/16 Time: 14:00 Location Turnitin
MARKER(S): Arooj Fatima
MODERATOR(S): Elaine Brown
FEEDBACK Where to get your
feedback:
Email ‘Post’ Date: 03/06/16

4.1 Submission
Submission is one document to Turnitin.
This assessment consists of documentation to be submitted, by
2pm Friday 06 May, 2016. You must
make a reasonable attempt at all parts to obtain a pass grade.
This is an individual assignment.
All coursework assignments and other forms of assessment must
be submitted by the published
deadline. It is your responsibility to know when work is due to
be submitted – ignorance of the deadline
date will not be accepted as a reason for late or non-submission.
5
All student work which contributes to the eventual outcome of
the module (ie: if it determines whether
you will pass or fail the module and counts towards the mark
you achieve for the module) is submitted
via Turnitin/GradeMark®. You CANNOT submit work for this
module via the iCentres. Additionally,
academic staff CANNOT accept this work directly from you.
You must upload your work to Turnitin by 2pm on the due date.
Any late work (posted to Turnitin/Grademark®) will NOT be

considered and a mark of zero will be
awarded for the assessment task in question.
You are requested to keep a copy of your work.
Submission process via Turnitin/Grademark®
You will have received an email to your STUDENT email
account, informing you that you’ve enrolled in a
Turnitin/Grademark® class for this module. When you log into
Turnitin/Grademark®, you will see
information about the module, such as the start date, due date
and time (GMT) for your assignment, and
the latest date on which your results will be made available
(post date), will be given. Once the post date
has passed, you will be able to view your feedback and grade.
PLEASE NOTE:
You will only have one opportunity to submit to this
Turnitin/Grademark® class so make sure
that what you submit is the work you want to be marked. If you
submit a draft it cannot be
removed and will be marked. If you submit to the wrong class,
or the faculty Turnitin® site that
you use for generating an originality report, it will be treated as
a non-submission and recorded
as a fail. Neither of these are subject to mitigation or academic
appeal.
Please submit before the due date and time given. This is given
as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)
adjusted for daylight savings, so please work out, in advance,
your local time difference. The submission

time is the point at which the document finishes uploading, not
when it starts. There is sometimes
substantial time needed to submit work in this way, depending
on the use being made of the system, so
it is not recommended to leave electronic submission to the last
minute.
More detailed information on using Turnitin/Grademark® is
available on the VLE, at
https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/Content/Home.asp
x.
Feedback on your work
You are entitled to feedback on your performance for all your
assessed work. For all assessment tasks
which are not examinations, this is accomplished by a member
of academic staff providing your mark
and associated comments which will relate to the achievement
of the module’s intended learning
outcomes and the assessment criteria you were given for the
task when it was first issued. This
feedback will be available on-line via Turnitin/Grademark or
may be sent directly to your Anglia Ruskin e-
mail account.
Examination scripts are retained by Anglia Ruskin and are not
returned to students. However, you are
entitled to feedback on your performance in an examination and
may request a meeting with the Module
Leader or Tutor to see your examination script and to discuss
your performance.
Anglia Ruskin is committed to providing you with feedback on
all assessed work within 20 working days

of the submission deadline or the date of an examination. This
is extended to 30 days for feedback for a
Major Project module (please note that working days excludes
those days when Anglia Ruskin University
is officially closed; eg: between Christmas and New Year).
Personal tutors will offer to read feedback
from several modules and help you to address any common
themes that may be emerging.
https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/Content/Home.asp
x
6
On occasion, you will receive feedback and marks for pieces of
work that you completed in the earlier
stages of the module. We provide you with this feedback as
part of the learning experience and to help
you prepare for other assessment tasks that you have still to
complete. It is important to note that, in
these cases, the marks for these pieces of work are unconfirmed.
This means that, potentially,
marks can change, in either direction!
Marks for modules and individual pieces of work become
confirmed on the Dates for the Official
Publication of Results, which can be checked at
www.anglia.ac.uk/results.
4.2 Assessment Specification

Hand-in dates: Week 6 (Part 1) / by 2pm Friday 06 May, 2016
(Part 2)
Select a computer system that requires a software interface, and
develop a prototype interface for the
interaction. We will brainstorm / evaluate a number of typical
applications and discuss your own ideas in
tutorial during the earlier weeks.
This assignment will comprise of 2 components involving
system proposal, requirements analysis,
design, implementation and evaluation of a limited functionality
horizontal prototype interface. Unless
you have formal Ethics Approval from Anglia Ruskin
University, and have completed the compulsory
Ethics Training, you are not authorised to gather primary data in
any form of questionnaire, or other
means. Please ask your tutor if you are not sure what this
means.
Note: you are not expected to implement the system itself, just
an interface which where appropriate
simulates full functionality.
Presentation
Component 2 of the assignment should be word processed and
not exceed 2500 words, excluding
appendices. Component 1 should be stapled to a cover sheet and

handed to the tutor during your tutorial
session.
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/results
7
Component 1 (15%) max 500 words due Week 6 in normal
timetabled tutorial
Include all of the following:
ollowing questions may help you in
exploring the problem
space: How do people currently achieve the task? What
problems are there with an
existing product or activity? Why do you think there are
problems? Why do you think
your proposed ideas might be useful? How do you envision
people will integrate your

proposed interface with how they currently do things in their
everyday or working
lives? (5 marks)
and User experience
goals for your interface (5 marks) Remember that these are non-
functional
requirements.
Component 2 (85%) 2500 words, by 2pm Friday 06 May, 2016,
Turnitin
Critical Exploration ( 15 )
In partial fulfilment of Learning Outcome 1: define and apply
relevant theory to the process of
determining a user needs analysis for a specific target
application.
Prepare a short critical exploration of your chosen area of
interaction and usability. This should be
approximately 500 words in length, and use no less than six
academic resources (which includes at
least 3 journal articles).
User Needs Analysis ( 15 )
In partial fulfilment of Learning Outcome 1: define and apply
relevant theory to the process of
determining a user needs analysis for a specific target
application.
Based on the secondary research, present a full and relevant
user profile, task analysis (for the
current system or method of achieving the goals ) and

environmental analysis. The user profile and
task analysis should derive from your secondary research (the
reading that you have done) and relate
to your chosen system; generic creations will not be accepted.
The source of any persona format
used must be acknowledged accordingly (using an in-text
citation at the point of use, and full
reference at the end of your report).
Preliminary Design ( 10 )
In partial fulfilment of Learning Outcome 2, in particular:
Design a corresponding interface for target
application.
Submit a storyboard as an early, low-fidelity prototype, to
describe the interaction of the user with the
system interface. Ensure that the following are detailed:
information / action / navigation components.
8
Detailed design ( 15 )
In partial fulfilment of Learning Outcome 2, in particular:
justify design decisions in terms of the
preceding user needs analysis, usability and psychological
theory.
Provide a concise yet detailed and well-structured design
rationale. You may find it helpful to include
your findings from your critical exploration above. Consider
design decisions under the following 3
separate categories:

task analysis / environmental
analysis ) ( 5 )
inc. metaphor/ idiom
/ choice of
language and icons / addressing users memory and attention
limitations /
mental models ). ( 5 )
* * Note : a general unstructured description of the interface
with passing
mention of some of the above is not sufficient for work at this
level.
Implementation ( 15 )
In fulfilment of Learning Outcome 3: Implement a limited
functionality interface.
Provide comprehensive screen dumps (the external examiner
needs to see these to appreciate your
work ).
Evaluation ( 15 )
In fulfilment of Learning Outcome 4: Critically evaluate the
design prototype, including introspective
evaluation and user evaluation.
Evaluate the usability of the interface by honest and insightful
testing. Outline / expose known bugs
and design errors / areas of weakness. Link to theory and the
user mental model. Discuss how the
interface could be improved in future prototype iterations.

Note that marvellous interfaces that rely solely on intuition with
no underlying research,
analysis and theoretical rationale cannot pass! Marks in the 1
and 2.1 categories will
undoubtedly demonstrate wider reading / web research.
We expect your work to be coherent, that is to evidence a
consistent approach through critical
exploration, scenario, task analysis (logical representation of
the task), storyboard (initial
graphical representation of the interaction to achieve the task),
design decisions (based on
previously identified usability and user experience goals),
screen captures (to illustrate the
task identified in previous steps), Cognitive Walkthrough (using
the screen captures to
illustrate the process).
Grade Criteria:
A ( 70+ ) Meets all or nearly all specification checkpoints,
displaying insight / novel perspectives. Elegant
yet economical expression of ideas. High degree of technical
proficiency in design. Extends discussion
of concepts beyond the taught material. Mastery of expression.
Insightful analysis of additional material.
Original and creative design prototype displaying outstanding
usability. Full / interpreted evaluation.
Reflective and critical understanding of the role of models in
user centred design.
B: ( 60+ ) Meets nearly all specification checkpoints. Clear
grasp of most issues. Well expressed ideas,

technically effective with few flaws. High competence, but
perhaps a slight lack of flair / initiative /
independence. Not enough lateral thought / wider reading. Clear
expression and organisation. Well
considered analysis. Competent and usable design prototype.
Full user evaluation. Critical
understanding of the role of models.
9
C: ( 50+ ) Fair coverage of specification. Some omissions.
Principles not always clearly grasped. Work is
coherent, but there is some difficulties with expression of ideas.
Some technical weaknesses.
Reasonable standard of work and attainment. Typically
submitted by a student who is happy to cover
most of the points required yet has not developed a truly
personal approach to their work. Minimal
analysis. Usable yet uninspiring design prototype. Minimal
evaluation.
D: ( 40+ ) Poor coverage of specification checkpoints. Poor
expression of ideas and underlying
principles / technically flawed. Has experienced problems with
the subject. Trivial user needs analysis.
Lacking evidence of grasp key points / superficial coverage of
problem set. Critical exploration lacking
depth. Design prototype needing greater evidence of
engagement with material. Evaluation needing
evidence of greater engagement with material.

5. Learning Resources
5.1. Library
The [email protected] project
(http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk/index.html) is the preferred way
to
create and publicise module Reading Lists.
Within the Faculty of Science and Technology it is expected
that every module will have at least the
Essential Reading within [email protected], in addition to the
University requirement for levels 3 & 4,
linked from the text following these instructions.
Module Resource List
http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk/modules/mod002591.html
All the Reading/Resource Lists
http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk/index.html
Library Contact
Faculty of Science and Technology
[email protected]
http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk/index.html
http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk/modules/mod002591.html
https://webmail.anglia.ac.uk/owa/redir.aspx?C=x4giGQeT-
kKjYqEJMBK1JjuayRyTAs8IRnA71fQiSijBLG8rnExvb6C6Zs_
HOuXrsplNJ7SDHtc.&URL=mailto%3alibteam.fst%40anglia.ac.
uk

10
6. How is My Work Marked?
After you have handed your work in or you have completed an
examination, Anglia Ruskin undertakes a
series of activities to assure that our marking processes are
comparable with those employed at other
universities in the UK and that your work has been marked
fairly, honestly and consistently. These
include:
– your name is not attached to your
work so, at the point of marking, the
lecturer does not know whose work he/she is considering.
When you undertake an assessment
task where your identity is known (eg: a presentation or Major
Project), it is marked by more than
one lecturer (known as double marking)
– a sample of all work for each
assessment task in each module is
moderated by other Anglia Ruskin staff to check the standards
and consistency of the marking
– a sample of student work for all
modules is moderated by external
examiners – experienced academic staff from other universities
(and sometimes practitioners
who represent relevant professions) - who scrutinise your work
and provide Anglia Ruskin

academic staff with feedback, advice and assurance that the
marking of your work is comparable
to that in other UK universities. Many of Anglia Ruskin’s staff
act as external examiners at other
universities.
– performance by all
students on all modules is
discussed and approved at the appropriate DAPs which are
attended by all relevant Module
Leaders and external examiners. Anglia Ruskin has over 25
DAPs to cover all the different
subjects we teach.
This module falls within the remit of the Computing and
Technology DAP.
The following external examiners are appointed to this DAP and
will oversee the assessment of this and
other modules within the DAP’s remit:
External Examiner’s Name Academic Institution
Mr Islah Ali-MacLachlan Birmingham City University
Mr Steven Bennett University of Hertfordshire
Dr Eric Chowanietz De Montfort University
Prof Merlyne De Souza University of Sheffield
Prof Steven Furnell Plymouth University

Dr Gerhard Hancke City University of Hong Kong
Mr Andrew Smith The Open University
The above list is correct at the time of publication. However,
external examiners are appointed at
various points throughout the year. An up-to-date list of
external examiners is available to students and
staff at www.anglia.ac.uk/eeinfo.
Anglia Ruskin’s marking process is represented in the flowchart
below:
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/eeinfo
11
Student submits
work / sits
examination
Work collated and passed to
Module Leader
Work is marked by Module
Leader and Module Tutor(s)1. All
marks collated by Module Leader
for ALL locations2

Internal moderation samples
selected. Moderation undertaken
by a second academic3
Unconfirmed marks and feedback
to students within 20 working
days (30 working days for Major
Projects)
External moderation samples
selected and moderated by
External Examiners4
Marks submitted to DAP5 for
consideration and approval
Marks Approved by DAP5 and
forwarded to Awards Board
Any issues?
Any issues?
Students receive
initial (unconfirmed)
feedback
Confirmed marks
issued to students
via e-Vision

M
a
rk
in
g
S
ta
g
e
In
te
rn
a
l
M
o
d
e
ra
ti
o
n
S
ta
g
e

E
x
te
rn
a
l
M
o
d
e
ra
ti
o
n
S
ta
g
e
D
A
P
4
S

ta
g
e
YES
YES
NO
NO
Flowchart of Anglia Ruskin’s Marking Processes
1 All work is marked anonymously or double marked where
identity of the student is known (eg: in a presentation)
2 The internal (and external) moderation process compares work
from all locations where the module is delivered
(eg: Cambridge, Chelmsford, Peterborough, Malaysia, India,
Trinidad etc.)
3 The sample for the internal moderation process comprises a
minimum of eight pieces of work or 10% (whichever
is the greater) for each marker and covers the full range of
marks
4 Only modules at levels 5, 6 and 7 are subject to external
moderation (unless required for separate reasons). The
sample for the external moderation process comprises a
minimum of eight pieces of work or 10% (whichever is
the greater) for the entire module and covers the full range of
marks

5 DAP: Departmental Assessment Panel – Anglia Ruskin has
over 25 different DAPs to reflect our subject coverage
12
7. Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards
On the following page are the Generic Assessment Criteria for
Level 5 at Anglia Ruskin. More specific marking
criteria will be published on the VLE, and discussed during
tutorials. Additionally, in accordance with our
Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of Students (see
section 8.3):
A piece of written work may be penalised if:
• The handwriting is difficult to read;
• There are multiple crossings out;
• The layout causes an unacceptable degree of confusion;
• Misspellings interfere with communication or are the result of
consistent carelessness and failure to
check adequately work submitted;
• Sentence structure is inappropriate to the content and the
word order interferes with understanding;
• Punctuation causes confusion for the reader as to the
perceived meaning of the sentence;
• Style is inappropriate to the subject matter (e.g. use of slang
terms, excessive formality or informality);
• The text lacks cohesion and coherence.

13
ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY GENERIC ASSESSMENT
CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS
LEVEL 5
Level 5 reflects continuing development from Level 4. At this
level students are not fully autonomous but are able to take
responsibility
for their own learning with some direction. Students are
expected to locate an increasingly detailed theoretical
knowledge of the
discipline within a more general intellectual context, and to
demonstrate this through forms of expression which go beyond
the merely
descriptive or imitative. Students are expected to demonstrate
analytical competence in terms both of problem identification
and
resolution, and to develop their skill sets as required.
Mark Bands Outcome
Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations,

Section 2)
Knowledge & Understanding
Intellectual (thinking), Practical,
Affective and Transferable Skills
C
h
a
ra
c
te
ri
s
ti
c
s
o
f
S
tu
d
e
n
t
A
c

h
ie
v
e
m
e
n
t
b
y
M
a
rk
in
g
B
a
n
d
90-100%
Achieves module
outcome(s) related to
GLO at this level

Exceptional information base exploring and analysing the
discipline, its theory and ethical issues with extraordinary
originality and autonomy.
Exceptional management of learning resources, with a
higher degree of autonomy/ exploration that clearly
exceeds the brief. Exceptional structure/accurate
expression. Demonstrates exceptional intellectual
originality and imagination. Exceptional team/practical/
professional skills.
80-89%
Outstanding information base exploring and analysing the
discipline, its theory and ethical issues with clear originality
and autonomy
Outstanding management of learning resources, with a
degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the
brief. An exemplar of structured/accurate expression.
Demonstrates outstanding intellectual originality and
imagination. Outstanding team/practical/professional skills
70-79%
Excellent knowledge base, exploring and analysing the
discipline, its theory and ethical issues with considerable
originality and autonomy
Excellent management of learning resources, with a
degree of autonomy/exploration that may exceed the brief.
Structured/accurate expression. Excellent academic/
intellectual skills and team/practical/professional skills
60-69%
Good knowledge base; explores and analyses the
discipline, its theory and ethical issues with some
originality, detail and autonomy

Good management of learning with consistent self-
direction. Structured and mainly accurate expression.
Good academic/intellectual skills and team/practical/
professional skills
50-59%
Satisfactory knowledge base that begins to explore and
analyse the theory and ethical issues of the discipline
Satisfactory use of learning resources. Acceptable
structure/accuracy in expression. Acceptable level of
academic/intellectual skills, going beyond description at
times. Satisfactory team/practical/professional skills.
Inconsistent self-direction
40-49%
A marginal pass in
module outcome(s)
related to GLO at this
level
Basic knowledge base with some omissions and/or lack of
theory of discipline and its ethical dimension
Basic use of learning resources with little self-direction.
Some input to team work. Some difficulties with academic/
intellectual skills. Largely imitative and descriptive. Some
difficulty with structure and accuracy in expression, but
developing practical/professional skills
30-39%
A marginal fail in

module outcome(s)
related to GLO at this
level. Possible
compensation. Sat-
isfies qualifying mark
Limited knowledge base; limited understanding of
discipline and its ethical dimension
Limited use of learning resources, working towards self-
direction. General difficulty with structure and accuracy in
expression. Weak academic/intellectual skills. Still mainly
imitative and descriptive. Team/practical/professional skills
that are not yet secure
20-29%
Fails to achieve
module outcome(s)
related to this GLO.
Qualifying mark not
satisfied. No
compensation
available
Little evidence of an information base. Little evidence of
understanding of discipline and its ethical dimension
Little evidence of use of learning resources. No self-
direction, with little evidence of contribution to team work.
Very weak academic/intellectual skills and significant
difficulties with structure/expression. Very imitative and
descriptive. Little evidence of practical/professional skills
10-19%

Inadequate information base. Inadequate understanding of
discipline and its ethical dimension
Inadequate use of learning resources. No attempt at self-
direction with inadequate contribution to team work. Very
weak academic/intellectual skills and major difficulty with
structure/expression. Wholly imitative and descriptive.
Inadequate practical/professional skills
1-9%
No evidence of any information base. No understanding
of discipline and its ethical dimension
No evidence of use of learning resources of understanding
of self-direction with no evidence of contribution to team
work. No evidence academic/intellectual skills and
incoherent structure/ expression. No evidence of practical/
professional skills
0%
Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and;
(iii) in situations where the student fails to address the
assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or
related learning outcomes
14

15
8. Attendance
Attending all your classes is very important and one of the best
ways to help you succeed in this module.
In accordance with the Student Charter, you are expected to
arrive on time and take an active part in all
your timetabled classes. If you are unable to attend a class for a
valid reason (eg: illness), please
contact your Module Tutor and our Administration Team at
[email protected]
Anglia Ruskin will closely monitor the attendance of all
students and will contact you by e-mail if you
have been absent without notice for two weeks. Please
remember to “tap-in” using your Ruskin card at
every taught session. Continued absence can result in various
consequences including the termination
of your registration as you will be considered to have
withdrawn from your studies.
International students who are non-EEA nationals and in
possession of entry clearance/leave to remain
as a student (Tier 4 student visa) are required to be in regular
attendance at Anglia Ruskin. Failure to do
so is considered to be a breach of national immigration
regulations. Failure to do so will have serious
implications for your immigration status in the UK. Anglia

Ruskin, like all British Universities, is statutorily
obliged to inform UK Visa & Immigration (Home Office) of
significant unauthorised absences by any
student visa holders.
9. Assessment Offences
As an academic community, we recognise that the principles of
truth, honesty and mutual respect are
central to the pursuit of knowledge. Behaviour that undermines
those principles weakens the community,
both individually and collectively, and diminishes our values.
We are committed to ensuring that every
student and member of staff is made aware of the
responsibilities s/he bears in maintaining the highest
standards of academic integrity and how those standards are
protected.
You are reminded that any work that you submit must be your
own. When you are preparing your work
for submission, it is important that you understand the various
academic conventions that you are
expected to follow in order to make sure that you do not leave
yourself open to accusations of plagiarism
(eg: the correct use of referencing, citations, footnotes etc.) and
that your work maintains its academic
integrity.
Definitions of Assessment Offences
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is theft and occurs when you present someone else’s

work, words, images, ideas, opinions or
discoveries, whether published or not, as your own. It is also
when you take the artwork, images or
computer-generated work of others, without properly
acknowledging where this is from or you do this
without their permission.
You can commit plagiarism in examinations, but it is most
likely to happen in coursework, assignments,
portfolios, essays, dissertations and so on.
Examples of plagiarism include:
performances, recorded work or images,
without saying where this is from;
as DVDs and CDs) which belongs to
someone else, and presenting it as your own;
and
mailto:[email protected]
16
produced by another student or person.

It is important that you do not plagiarise – intentionally or
unintentionally – because the work of others
and their ideas are their own. There are benefits to producing
original ideas in terms of awards, prizes,
qualifications, reputation and so on. To use someone else’s
work, words, images, ideas or discoveries is
a form of theft.
Collusion
Collusion is similar to plagiarism as it is an attempt to present
another’s work as your own. In plagiarism
the original owner of the work is not aware you are using it, in
collusion two or more people may be
involved in trying to produce one piece of work to benefit one
individual, or plagiarising another person’s
work.
Examples of collusion include:
omeone else to produce part or all of your work;
Many parts of university life need students to work together.
Working as a team, as directed by your
tutor, and producing group work is not collusion. Collusion

only happens if you produce joint work to
benefit of one or more person and try to deceive another (for
example the assessor).
Cheating
Cheating is when someone aims to get unfair advantage over
others.
Examples of cheating include:
nts, research, interviews
and observations);
and
Help to Avoid Assessment Offences
Most of our students are honest and want to avoid committing
assessment offences. We have a variety
of resources, advice and guidance available to help make sure
you can develop good academic skills.
We will make sure that we make available consistent statements

about what we expect. In accordance
with our ‘Academic Honesty Policy’, you will be able to do
tutorials on being honest in your work from
the library (http://anglia.libguides.com/GAP) and other central
support services and faculties, and will be
able to review your work for plagiarism using ‘Turnitin®UK’
(where appropriate), an online service for
matched-text. You can get advice on how to use honestly the
work of others in your own work from the
library website
(www.libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/referencing.htm) and
your lecturer and personal
tutor.
Turnitin®UK will produce a report which clearly shows if
passages in your work have been matched
with another source. Originality of assessment is an academic
judgement and there is no
http://anglia.libguides.com/GAP
http://www.libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/referencing.htm
17
generally acceptable upper or lower similarity score. You may
talk about the matched-text in the
‘Turnitin®UK’ report with a member of academic staff to see
where you may need to improve your
academic practice. If you are not sure whether the way you are
working meets our requirements, you
should talk to your personal tutor, module tutor or other
member of academic staff. They will be able to

help you and tell you about other resources that will help you
develop your academic skills.
Procedures for Assessment Offences
An assessment offence is the general term used to define cases
where a student has tried to get unfair
academic advantage in an assessment for himself or herself or
another student.
In cases where the Module Leader suspects that the assignment
submitted is not the work of the
student, and may have been produced by another person, the
Module Leader informs the Director of
Studies of the suspicion of an assessment offence. In the
process of considering the academic integrity
of the work, the Director of Studies may invite the student to a
meeting, with the Module Leader, to
answer questions about the assignment.
We will fully investigate all cases of suspected assessment
offences. If we prove that you have
committed an assessment offence, an appropriate penalty will be
imposed which, for the most serious
offences, includes expulsion from Anglia Ruskin. For full
details of our assessment offences policy and
procedures, see Section 10 of the Academic Regulations at:
www.anglia.ac.uk/academicregs.
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/academicregs

18
10. Module Evaluation
During the second half of the delivery of this module, you will
be asked to complete a module evaluation
questionnaire to help us obtain your views on all aspects of the
module.
This is an extremely important process which helps us to
continue to improve the delivery of the module
in the future and to respond to issues that you bring to our
attention. The module report in section 11 of
this module guide includes a section which comments on the
feedback we received from other students
who have studied this module previously.
Your questionnaire response is anonymous.
Please help us to help you and other students at Anglia Ruskin
by completing the Module Evaluation
survey. We very much value our students’ views and it is very
important to us that you provide feedback
to help us make improvements.
In addition to the Module Evaluation process, you can send any
comment on anything related to your
experience at Anglia Ruskin to [email protected] at any time.
11. Report on Last Delivery of Module
The Module Report for this module can be found on the VLE

mailto:[email protected]
A N G L I A R U S K I
N U N I V E R S I T Y
Interaction & Usability
MOD002591
Initial assumptions
Description
The proposed interface is a website
, with published copies of artwork. The target user will be
employers
, who will be able to view an artist’s work
. This will aid decisions for employment or accepting a
placement. The site will also list email addresses and a CV. The
work will also be available for general viewing by the general
public.
User assumptions
There are many websites
for artwork available. These include blogs, websites and social
media sites. The sites are generally of similar design, the design
is consistent across the site
, and does not vary according to the individual
.
This may be caused by the designers trying to be too consistent
and afraid to innovate
. This is a problem seen by Pyla et al (2006)
. “Further, we believe that consistency is desirable
as long as it supports seamless task migration but should not

dictate the design.
”
The proposed interface will use original design ideas
, which will be interesting to the user and also display the
artist’s personality.
However consistency will be used: consistency increases
efficiency and confidence
. Roy et al (2001) agree : “In human-
computer interaction, consistency is recognized to be able to
improve user performance and user satisfaction
”
. Improving the user’s performance
will increase their satisfaction with the system as they will feel
they have got more work done.
As Tractinsky et al (2000) say “Pre-experimental measures
indicate strong correlations between system's perceived
aesthetics and perceived usability. Post-experimental measures
indicated that the strong correlation remained intact.”
This shows that by making the site aesthetically pleasing the
user will instantly feel confident in the interface and its
usability. This will be an important user goal, as the user should
feel confident when using the interface for the first time, as
many will only visit once or twice.
The site should convey a sense of professionalism as the user
will want to feel confident
in employing the artist. Egger (2001) describes how
professionalism is achieved through excellent presentation
.
The user likes to feel successful
. This can be achieved through careful design, by allowing them
to complete tasks efficiently
, to achieve the goal through good utility (Hassenzahl, 2004)
. The interface should be clearly laid out and also allow all the
necessary functions the user may need to complete their task
.

�Compare this with the suggested format from the Week 4
lecture. Analyse this paragraph to see if it contains each of the
recommended parts. Marks would be attributable here for the
envisaged implementation.
�This is interesting, so an attempt has been made to identify
the target user here. Note that this has been identified by the job
title, which could be interpreted as a broad category (which
employers, located where, for which industries, or local
companies?) This could be more specific with just a few
additional words.
�This would appear to be the main task for which the employer
would wish to interact with the website.
�This is an interesting comment. In what way does this add to
the requirements of the proposal (and the 5 marks available)?
�would normally substantiate a broad comment like this with
some sort of validation … for example the journal article that
actually states this, or a list of selected websites that you have
found that evidence this.
�This is a good observation in setting up the argument that
follows.
�Is this a problem? There are two points for feedback here: the
first is that consistency is seen as “a good thing”, a desirable
quality for intuitive interaction, the second point is, if the
desired consistency is a problem here specifically, the reasons

for this need to be identified explicitly.
�the similar design being what?
�is the artist the designer of the site? or are you saying that the
design of the site is not consistent with the style of the artist?
This is a good observation, but needs further reasoning to
support it.
�consistent with what? consistent with each other?
�This appears to be a personal opinion, and to be viewed as a
strong and persuasive argument requires support. This support
is usually through citation to academic literature (books or
journal articles).
�good referencing, well done
�The assignment is good in that it references other work. This
could be improved through the use of the author’s own words.
(Note that a quotation only evidences the skills of copy-and-
paste). Additionally, consider the content of this quote:
“consistency is desirable”. This supports the idea that
consistency is “a good thing”, rather than the idea that
personalisation is a desirable trait. It is great that this work
references external resources, but in your work, ensure that the
meaning supports the logic of your own argument.
�good referencing, but is this statement really consistent with

what you are trying to say? What is this statement really saying,
and is it what you are saying?
�as this will be user-centric design, it is necessary to ask
(through the questionnaire) what the user wants. At this stage it
is too early to state that the design ideas will be ‘original’ as
the user might want the design to be consistent with everyone
else’s.
�This is a broad statement, and whilst it may be true (or may
not be true, depending on the circumstances) it does need to be
supported by an in-text citation, to identify who agrees with this
statement.
�I like the way in which a quotation is used to support the
argument. However, look at the attributes said to be improved,
“user performance” and “user satisfaction”; are these the same
as “efficiency” and “confidence”? It could be argued that they
are similar, or that they do relate in some way, and the author is
to be applauded for attempting this conceptual leap. However,
to be convincing, we need a little more explanation why these
are the same, or related, and who else agrees.
�good!
�user’s performance? not sure what is meant by this?
�ok, but what does this mean? It is good to find quotes, or
references, but you need to evaluate the statements yourself to
say whether you agree or not. To paste a quote is a start, but

doesn’t indicate how it fits with your thinking.
�Ok, good user experience goal here, now needing to justifty
this in terms of the literature (the resources that you have read)
�This is good. Here the author has identified the meaning
behind the work by this author, Egger. The author has put this
into their own words, and has used it in support of their
argument. This is great practice, well done the author!
�Ok, another user experience goal, now we are looking for
justification from the academic literature.
�This is another good point. So here, the author has identified a
user experience goal, and has identified how this could be
achieved through the design. This is another positive point for
this piece of work.
�Again, the author has evidence excellent academic practice
here. They have identified the user experience, they have
identified how the design could achieve this, and have
supported this through reference (in-text citation) to another
author. Furthermore, the author has gone on to explain their
own meaning of the word “utility”. This is really great practice,
well done the author of this work!
�Now just missing the complete set of References that have
been used within the text … oops!

�… and finally, the assignment comes in at under 500 words,
so no word-limit penalty. Well done.
1
Example Component 1
Interaction and Usability
(MOD002591)
fBack
An application for immediate, anonymous feedback of student
experience
Due Date:
Tutorial, Week 6
Faculty:
Science and Technology
Department:
Computing & Technology
Module Code:
MOD002591
Academic Year:
2014/2015
Semester:
2
Content
The following is suggested content and structure. Please delete
comments in this colour, these are provided to help you to
structure your report.
Please find detailed below an example report structure. This is
not compulsory. This is only a suggested structure. Within each
section I have listed the requirements from the Module Guide.

There is no new information, but the structure may help to
organise your ideas.
The following list of contents is linked to each of the headings
that follow. To update this Table of Contents, click anywhere
within the contents (so they all go grey), and hit the F9 key. If
you update the entire table (for example if you have added
sections, or changed the wording) you may need to select the
Table of Contents and update the font style and size.
21.Brief description (5 marks)
22.Initial assumptions (5 marks)
23.Justification of goals (5 marks)
34.References
1.
Brief description (5 marks)
[Please delete the following text] There are 5 marks for a brief
description of your proposed interface. You will need to make
one observation for each mark, and include examples where
appropriate.
This proposal is for a mobile application on an Apple iPhone (or
similar tablet device), for undergraduate students specialising in
Computing and Technology to be able to communicate with
their lecturers in real time. This will mean that they will be able
to offer instant and anonymous feedback during lectures. This
will mean that the student is able to communicate their level of
understanding and/or happiness, which will mean that the
lecturer is able to go over the topic again, and hence give the
student a feeling of control over the pace of the lecture. (95
words)2.
Initial assumptions (5 marks)
[Please delete the following text] This is an exploration of The
Problem Space, as covered during Weeks 2 and revised in Week
3.
The following questions may help you in exploring the problem
space:

· How do people currently achieve the task?
· What problems are there with an existing product or activity?
· Why do you think there are problems?
· Why do you think your proposed ideas might be useful?
· How do you envision people will integrate your proposed
interface with how they currently do things in their everyday or
working lives?.
In exploring the Problem Space, the questions suggested by
Rogers, Sharp and Preece (2011, p.39) have been used as a
framework. Currently students present in a face-to-face lecture
are only able to offer feedback that they do not understand
through raising their hand and asking, or may be communicated
to the lecturer through a puzzled expression.
The problem with raising your hand in a face-to-face, public
lecture, is that it can feel embarrassing.
This level of embarrassment can be caused by having to admit
that you don’t know infront of your friends (and the lecturer),
and this can compound with feelings of fear and inadequacy.
This can mean that questions go unasked.
Through this proposed interface, it is envisaged that students
will be able to ask questions, or simply send an ‘emoticon’ to
express confusion. As this is anonymous, and is more private, it
is envisaged that this will cause less fear, and more honesty,
and enable questions to be answered and confusion to be cleared
up at a more appropriate time. (171 words) 3.
Justification of goals (5 marks)
[Please delete the following text]. Justify which you consider to
be the most important Usability and User Experience goals for
the proposed interface. Remember that these are non-functional
requirements.
The most important usability goals are: efficiency and utility;
the most important user experience goals are: feelings of being

in control, trust and fun. (24 words)4.
References
[Please delete the following text] Citations to reputable, peer
reviewed, academic resources should be included within the
text, at the place where the idea is used, and attributed. Where
the phrase is identical, or substantially similar, it should be
enclosed in quotation marks (in addition) to indicate that these
words are not those of the author of this report.
Organise References, and the Bibliography, in alphabetical
order by the lastname of the author. Make sure that websites
have a full reference, and not just the URL. Higher marks will
be awarded for a reference section where the font and font style
is consistent with the rest of the report, and does not differ in
style or size.
Rogers, Y., Sharp, H. & Preece, J. 2011. Interaction Design:
beyond human-computer interaction. Third Edition.
Chichester:John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
1

ENGL 1301Week #6 Chapter 16 Profiles,” pages 191; 199-20.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ENGL 1301Week #6 Chapter 16 Profiles,” pages 191; 199-20.docx

Similar to ENGL 1301Week #6 Chapter 16 Profiles,” pages 191; 199-20.docx (20)

More from aryan532920

More from aryan532920 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ENGL 1301Week #6 Chapter 16 Profiles,” pages 191; 199-20.docx