Module Title: Human-Computer Interaction for Social Change

Submission Time
Report to be submitted by 23:59 BST on 18/03/2020.
and Date:

Word Limit: 2000 words (plus max. 1 page for Rich Picture), not including the front cover, contents
page, references, bibliography and appendices, diagrams.

Weighting This coursework accounts for 60% of the total mark for this module and will be marked
out of 60 marks
Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA): The report must be submitted
Submission of
through Turnitin via Blackboard. The submitted file should be in the form of a Microsoft
Assessment
Word document (.docx) or a PDF (.pdf).

You should also submit a separate uncompressed version of your Rich Picture via the
module’s eLP site. This second part of your submission should be in PNG or PDF
format.

Module assessment overview

Assessment for this module consists of two parts: an individual component worth 60% and a
group component worth 40%. This document details the individual component of the
assessment. Note that while the two components are not dependent on each other, the
research and design work that you complete as part of this individual component will be
relevant and useful for the group component.

Relevant Programme-level Learning Outcomes

This assignment contributes to the following Programme-level learning outcomes:

• KU2: Demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge and critical understanding of

essential facts, concepts, principles, theories, methods, techniques and tools in the
application and management of a range of current and emerging aspects of
computer science

• KU4: Apply a comprehensive understanding of the professional, ethical, legal and

social issues involved in the development and operation of a range of aspects of
computer science.

• IPSA8: Appreciate and apply appropriate techniques, tools and knowledge to support
effective research and advanced scholarship

• PVA1: Learn independently as an individual or as a team member, enhancing

existing skills and developing new ones to a high level, enabling you to sustain your
own continued professional development

• PVA6: Demonstrate independent research and enquiry at an appropriately advanced

level.

Module Learning Outcomes Assessed

On completion of the assignment, students should have achieved the following learning
outcomes (module learning outcomes can be found in full in the module handbook):
 • MLO3: Understanding of specific application areas of contemporary HCI.

• MLO5: Demonstrate critical engagement with research, including with research

papers, articles, etc.

Task Overview

This assignment is a research and design task for which you must produce a 2-part report
(part A and B below). The research and design domain for this assignment is food poverty
in the UK.

Part A) Rich Picture of Secondary Research (30 marks)

In this assignment, you will be required to conduct secondary research in order to develop
understandings of a particular social issue or context. This can involve, for example, online
research, reading academic articles, and reading books. The topic of the secondary
research for this assignment is food poverty in the UK. This could include, for example,
data on experiences of food poverty and effects on everyday life, organisations that provide
services for people in food poverty, food poverty in the media, and adoption and use of ICT
in relation to food poverty and organisations/services associated with this.

Using your secondary research, you must analyse your findings to produce a Rich Picture
of the design context. A Rich Picture is a diagrammatic approach to explore and understand
a phenomenon or design context. It uses graphs, cartoons, words, symbols, etc. It can
include in its representation things like people, processes, structures, issues expressed by
people, conflict, and climate1. You must annotate your diagram by making reference to
sources from your secondary research and a short explanation of the relevant findings from
these. Your report should include a page of numbered annotations making citations to
secondary research, and you should label the parts of your Rich Picture with the numbers of
relevant annotations.

Part A of your report should contain the following:

• A Rich Picture (max. 1 page)
• Numbered annotations with citations linking to your Rich Picture (max. 1000 words)

Part B) Design Fiction (30 marks)

Based on the Rich Picture you developed in Part 1 and the secondary research you have
done, you must design a digital technology concept to bring about social change in relation
to food poverty, and create a design fiction to represent and critically reflect on how it might
be interacted with and experienced. This can take any written form of your choice. For
example, a customer review, a radio advert, terms and conditions of use, etc. You must then
discuss your rationale for the design fiction. Part B of your report should contain the
following:
• Your design fiction (max. 500 words)
• A discussion of your rationale for the presented design fiction, making reference to
your secondary research focused broadly on food poverty in the UK, and Rich
Picture (max. 500 words)
• A critical reflection on what your design fiction says about existing HCI literature
relevant to social change. This might include topics like food, social justice,
marginalised communities, or politics of participation. (max. 500 words excluding
references)

1
Rich Picture: https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/evaluation-options/richpictures
This is an individual assignment and must be completed without collusion with others, in
accordance with University regulations.

The assessment criteria that will be applied to your work is as follows:

Part A [total 30 marks]. Marks will be awarded for:

• Clarity and presentation of the Rich Picture
• Reference to secondary data in Rich Picture
• Quality of sources of secondary data
• Depth, relevance, and accuracy of analysis (number of stakeholders represented,
specificity of roles and relationships, justification of diagram parts with respect to
secondary research)

Part B [total 30 marks]. Marks will be awarded for:

• Relationship of design fiction to secondary research and Rich Picture
• How well does the design fiction describe and bring to life a possible future e.g.,
description of context, relevance of the design fiction form, insight into interaction and
experience?
• How effective might the design fiction be in generating discussion and debate? How
well does the design fiction critique a possible future? To what extent does the
design fiction raise questions about a possible future?
• Critical reflection on HCI research

ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS & SUMISSION REQUIREMENTS

You are advised to read the guidance for students regarding assessment policies. They are
available online here.

Referencing should be in the Harvard style (see Cite Them Right available at
http://www.citethemrightonline.com). Please note; you will need your University Student ID
and password to access this resource.

Students must retain an electronic copy of this assignment (including ALL appendices)
and it must be made available within 24hours of it being requested from them.

Your assignment must be submitted electronically via Turnitin by the given deadline above.
You will find a Turnitin link on the module’s eLP site. The submitted file should be in the form
of a Microsoft Word document (.docx) or a PDF (.pdf).

You should also submit a separate uncompressed version of your Rich Picture via the
module’s eLP site. This second part of your submission should be in PNG or PDF format.

Anonymous marking

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

Late submission of work

Where coursework is submitted without approval, after the published hand-in

deadline, the following penalties will apply.
 For coursework submitted up to 1 working day (24 hours) after the published hand-in
deadline without approval, 10% of the total marks available for the assessment
(i.e. 60%) shall be deducted from the assessment mark.

Coursework submitted more than 1 day (24 hours) after the published hand-in
deadline without approval will be marked as zero but will be eligible for referral.

These provisions apply to all assessments, including those assessed on a Pass/Fail

basis.

Word limits and penalties

If the assignment is within +10% of the stated word limit no penalty will apply.

The word count is to be declared on the front page of your assignment and the
assignment cover sheet.

The word count does not include the title page, table of contents, reference list,
bibliography, and appendices. Please note, in text citations [e.g. (Smith, 2011)] and
direct secondary quotations [e.g. “dib-dab nonsense analysis” (Smith, 2011 p.123)]
are INCLUDED in the word count.

Remember, this is an individual assessment and should be entirely your own work.
Where you have used someone else’s words (quotations), they should be correctly
quoted and referenced in accordance with the Harvard System.

Opportunities for Feedback

Formative feedback will be delivered in class or on request.

Summative feedback will be delivered no more than 20 working days after

submission of the assignment.

Assessment Criteria and Guidance

Assessment Criteria Guidance: generic overview of final mark

70% and over: a mark of over 70% is indicative of excellent work where the student has more
than met the requirements of the assessment brief and demonstrated a high level of
understanding appropriate to level 7. All assessment outcomes have been met and evidence
is provided of a high degree of original thought, independent learning and ability to critically
analyse to high level.

60-69%: this mark means that the work is competent and completed to a good standard. The
requirements of the assessment brief have been met to a high standard but with room for a
few minor areas of improvement. Marks at the lower end in this band suggest that students
have met all or most of the requirements of the assessment brief but there are a larger
number of minor areas needing improvement.
50-59%: marks within this band indicate a threshold pass, where the work has met the
assessment requirements to a satisfactory standard, but where there is still significant scope
for improvement. The work will have covered most of the key assessment criteria, but these
might be at a more superficial level compared with work in the higher mark ranges, with
evidence of a less complete understanding of the subject area. The work may indicate that
less independent learning has been performed or that less robust arguments are suggested.

40 – 49%: this is a fail mark, where learning outcomes may not all have been met to a
satisfactory standard and where there may be a range of omissions, poor communication
and/or possibly a lack of knowledge derived from wider reading. Work in this mark range
indicates insufficient evidence of an understanding of the subject area appropriate to level 7,
and/or that insufficient attention has been given to the assessment brief.

Below 40%: this is a fail mark, indicating a piece of work which is below the acceptable
standard and which provides little evidence of the skills, understanding or knowledge
appropriate to level 7. There may be many errors and omissions, and few or no of the learning
outcomes have been met, with an inadequate demonstration of the student understanding
the subject area and/or the ability to provide an adequate critical analysis of their personal
development. Instructions may not have been followed or assessment criteria may have been
missed out.

0%: usually this mark suggests non-submission of work or proven evidence of academic
misconduct.
Assessment Criteria: Report (60% of overall mark)
Part A: Rich Picture Mark of 30-21 (100- Mark of 20-18 (69-60%) = Mark of 17-15 (59-50%) = Mark of 14-12 (49-40%) Mark of 11-4 (39 – Mark of 3-0 (10 %
of Secondary 70%) = = 11%) = and below) =
Research (30 Good level of clarity of the Satisfactory level of clarity
marks) Excellent level of clarity Rich Picture in portraying of the Rich Picture in Less than adequate level Unsatisfactory level of Rich Picture not clear
of the Rich Picture in the secondary research portraying the secondary of clarity of the Rich clarity of the Rich in portraying the
portraying the domain. Good use of research domain. Picture in portraying the Picture in portraying secondary research
secondary research symbols and other visual Satisfactory use of secondary research the secondary domain, or fails to
domain. Excellent use of and textual elements. symbols and other visual domain. Less than research domain. represent it.
symbols and other visual Good organisation and and textual elements. adequate use of Unsatisfactory
and textual elements. level of Satisfactory organisation symbols and other visual organisation and only No or irrelevant use
Excellent organisation comprehensiveness. Good and level of and textual elements. partially represents of citations. Little or
and comprehensiveness. use of references to comprehensiveness. Less than adequate the topic. no attempt made to
Excellent and quality secondary data Satisfactory use of organisation and level of Unsatisfactory use of construct arguments
comprehensive use of sources to support references to good comprehensiveness. references including informed by the
references to high- aspects of the Rich secondary data sources to Less than adequate use poor or no sources of literature in the
quality secondary data Picture. Good critical support aspects of the of references to medium secondary data annotations for the
sources to support the engagement with the Rich Picture. Satisfactory and low quality sources to support Rich Picture.
Rich Picture. Excellent secondary research critical engagement with secondary data sources aspects of the Rich
critical engagement with sources to provide the secondary research to support aspects of Picture. Unsatisfactory
the secondary research rationale for the Rich sources to provide the Rich Picture. Less critical engagement
sources to provide Picture in the annotations. rationale for the Rich than adequate critical with the secondary
rationale for the Rich Picture in the annotations. engagement with the research sources to
Picture in the Good standard of secondary research provide rationale for
annotations. academic writing for the Satisfactory standard of sources to provide the Rich Picture in the
annotations. Good use of academic writing for the rationale for the Rich annotations.
Excellent standard of referencing throughout, annotations. Satisfactory Picture in the
academic writing for the including usage in the use of referencing annotations. Unsatisfactory
annotations. Excellent correct style, format and throughout, including standard of academic
use of referencing in the appropriate context. usage mostly in the Less than adequate writing and
throughout, including correct style, format and standard of academic referencing.
usage in the correct in the appropriate context. writing for the
style, format and in the annotations. Less than
appropriate context. adequate use of
referencing throughout.

Page 6 of 7
Part B: Design Mark of 30-21 (100-
Fiction (30 marks) 70%) =
Excellent linkage of
design fiction to
secondary research.
Design fiction
excellently critically
reflects and provides
insight into a possible
future and how people
might interact with and
experience a novel
technology in it.
Excellent use of design
fiction form to illustrate
a perspective on the
technological artefact.
Excellent level of critical
engagement with HCI
research based closely
on the design fiction.
Excellent standard of
academic writing
throughout the report.
Excellent logical
structure used. Excellent
use of referencing
throughout, including
usage in the correct
style, format and in the
appropriate context.
Mark of 20-18 (69-60%) =
Good linkage of design
fiction to secondary
research. Good use of the
design fiction to critically
reflect and provide insight
into a possible future and
how people might interact
with and experience a
novel technology in it.
Good use of design fiction
form to illustrate a
perspective on the
technological artefact.
Good level of critical
engagement with HCI
research based on the
design fiction.
Good standard of
academic writing
throughout the report.
Good logical structure
used. Good use of
referencing throughout,
including usage in the
correct style, format and
in the appropriate context.
Mark of 17-15 (59-50%) =
Satisfactory linkage of
design fiction to
secondary research.
Satisfactory use of the
design fiction to critically
reflect and provide insight
into a possible future and
how people might interact
with and experience a
novel technology in it.
Satisfactory use of design
fiction form to illustrate a
perspective on the
technological artefact.
Satisfactory level of
critical engagement with
HCI research based
somewhat on the design
fiction.
Satisfactory standard of
academic writing
throughout the report.
Satisfactory logical
structure used.
Satisfactory use of
referencing throughout,
including usage in the
correct style, format and in
the appropriate context.
Page 7 of 7
Mark of 14-12 (49-40%) Mark of 11-4 (39-11%) Mark of 3-0 (10%
= = and below) =
Less than adequate Unsatisfactory linkage No meaningful
linkage of design fiction of design fiction to attempt made to
to secondary research. secondary research. connect design
Less than adequate use Unsatisfactory use of fiction to secondary
of the design fiction to the design fiction to research and to use
critically reflect and critically reflect and the design fiction to
provide insight into a provide insight into a critically reflect and
possible future and how possible future and provide insight into a
people might interact how people might possible future.
with and experience a interact with and
novel technology in it. experience a novel No meaningful
Less than adequate use technology in it. attempt made to
of design fiction form to Unsatisfactory use of critically engage with
illustrate a perspective design fiction form to HCI research. No or
on the technological illustrate a perspective irrelevant use of
artefact. Less than on the technological citations.
adequate level of critical artefact.
engagement with HCI Unsatisfactory level of
research with poor critical engagement
connection to the design with HCI research with
fiction. little or no connection
to the design fiction.
Less than adequate
standard of academic Unsatisfactory
writing throughout the standard of academic
report. Less than writing and use of
adequate use of referencing throughout
referencing throughout. the report.