The document outlines the course structure and content for Emerging Practices 2019. It includes 12 weekly topics that will be covered over the semester, ranging from technology and society to speculative futures to social robots. Each week includes assigned readings, videos, in-class activities, and formative or summative assessments due. The document also lists the interests of 18 students enrolled in the course, focusing on areas like interaction design, automation, health and well-being, nature interfaces, and more.

1. Emerging Practices 2019
#ctec702
Week 3
Ricardo Sosa
rsosa@aut.ac.nz
designcomputing

2. Weeks Content Activity To Do
1 Technology & Society In class analysis of an EP case
Reading 1 & Video 1;
CYOA a D&T kickstarter EP case
2 Non-humans (Artefacts) In class evaluation of 3Doodler Formative 1 due: Analysis of your EP case
3 Speculative Futures In class ideation session for future tech Formative 2 due: Evaluation of your EP case
4 Philosophies Presentations of your EP case: A-E-S & feedforward
Formative 3 due: Synthesis of your EP case
Videos of social robots (shortlist 12-6-3, justify)
5 Social Robots
In class initial analysis of videos; definitions and initial
impressions
Prepare notes and questions for crit session on Analysis
6 HRI; Social Cognition In class activity; crit session on your Analysis work Summative 1 due: Analysis report
7 Adoption and Diffusion Student presentations of themes emerging from Analysis Reading 2 & Video 2
8 From Analysis to Evaluation In class low-fi prototyping (Wizard of Oz technique)
9 Speculative Futures In class assessment of speculative designs Summative 2 due: Evaluation report
10 From Evaluation to Ideation Ideation techniques and formats Reading 3 & Video 3
11 Co-Design In class planning and running a Co-design workshop
12 Emergent Practices: 2050 Summative 3 due: Synthesis report

3. Follow the logic: https://bookofbadarguments.com/

4. Better yet: https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-historians-started-taking-the-what-if-seriously

5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhU0hRng-eE
Against Solutionism (Evgeny Morozov, Stanford University) | DLD14

6. #ctec702 students’ interests
1. Joshua: Interaction Design; UX:
humane technology
2. Gianni: tech to improve work
processes
3. Eden: Placebo effects; Health, well-
being
4. Kale: Nature-Artificial interface
5. Simon: Automation in everyday
domestic life
6. Tim: Film and audio
7. Hiren: culture, identity
8. Hooryah: patient centred care,
quality of life
9. Quentin: communication;
collaboration
10. Melissa: learning; visual
communication
11. Shalvin: HCD, segmentation, target
users
12. Carol Taka: Security; tech for access
13. Carol Lau: AR; automation; AI
14. Liam: Perspectives and light
15. Daniel: AV installation, content
creation, Video/photography, Co-
design
16. Adam: making (product design),
generative design and its implications
on HCI
17. James: Spatiality, Digital graphics &
Film/Game production
18. Max: play, VR, robotics, media design

7. THE FRAUDULENT CLAIMS MADE BY IBM ABOUT WATSON AND AI.
https://www.rogerschank.com/fraudulent-claims-made-by-IBM-about-Watson-and-AI
“It would be nice if IBM would tone down the hype and let
people know what Watson can actually do and stop
making up nonsense about love fading and out thinking
cancer. IBM is simply lying now and they need to stop.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC0I08qt5VU

8. https://www.wired.com/story/tech-needs-to-listen-to-actual-researchers/
“We should educate all—not just engineers—in how to become active technological citizens. This
does not mean learning how to code. It means knowing enough to ask questions about how the
code affects work, life, and community. It means understanding how people can hold institutions
and firms accountable through literacy, advocacy, and social movements.”

9. Rubric
(Analysis)
Insufficient (D) Incomplete (C) Adequate (B) Exceptional (A)
Clarity Poor readability makes the
report hard to follow, the
main ideas are unclear, and
argument is difficult to
assess.
Limited writing, flaws make it
difficult to read, and many ideas
are unclear.
Readable and mostly easy to
follow and understand. Some
limitations with language.
Engaging to read, memorable and
persuasive, easy to follow and
understand the main arguments.
Frames new questions and reveals
assumptions clearly.
Criticality
(LO1)
Impersonal, uncritical,
remains descriptive without
evidence of analysis. Fails to
identify claims, messages,
and agendas in how the case
study is defined and its
purpose and values
embedded.
Timid analysis, some critical
approximations to deconstruct
how the device is defined and
perceived by the creators and/or
users or experts. Misses
opportunities to “read between
the lines” and seems to take
things at face value.
Mostly a complete analysis
showing a personal approximation
at the case study, cites and
interprets specific statements and
images. Misses some sources or
details which leads to a somehow
limited understanding of the
purpose of this device.
A personal take on the case,
identifies overt as well as concealed
messages that help reveal an
insightful understanding of the
purpose of this device, and the
values it embodies. Reveals issues
and dimensions that are grounded in
the analysis and aren’t immediately
obvious.
Validity
(LO2)
Uninformed, arbitrary,
improvised, lacks relevant or
credible sources. No
triangulation of ideas, no
connection and no
elaboration of meanings
about this device.
Some sources but some lack
relevance or credibility.
Insufficient connection and
triangulation of ideas, reads
superficial due to weak sources.
Missed opportunities to go offline
and source ideas from
experienced people or relevant
events.
Mostly relevant and credible
sources, including authoritative
and genuine voices. Some
triangulation of ideas between
sources. Most of the arguments in
the analysis are supported
adequately either directly or by
the student interpreting and
building upon sources.
Identified and triangulated ideas
from a range of sources, revealed
new meanings from relevant and
authentic information. The key
arguments in the analysis are
strongly supported by sources either
directly drawing from them, or by
insightful views and interpretations
of them by the student.