DECO 6500 Advanced Human-Computer Interaction Assessment 2: Review of a Seminal HCI Paper Due Date: 9th September 2021, 15:00 via the Blackboard site Weighting: 10% Individual Work Description: This assessment involves writing a scientific review of a seminal HCI paper. It is expected that the review is around ~1500 words and discusses the positive and negative aspects of the paper. Paper to be Reviewed: Brown B., Taylor A.S., Izadi S., Sellen A., Kaye J.J., Eardley R. (2007) Locating Family Values: A Field Trial of the Whereabouts Clock. In: Krumm J., Abowd G.D., Seneviratne A., Strang T. (eds) UbiComp 2007: Ubiquitous Computing. UbiComp 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4717. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/10.1007/978-3-540-74853-3_21 (Nominated for Best Paper Award) Learning Objectives: 1. Develop advanced level of HCI knowledge through reflective and critical thinking 2. Learn important aspects related to scientific paper writing Deliverable: A report containing a detailed review of the paper. It is expected that the report will be around 1500 words. Review Contents: Your review should contain the following (Adapted from CHI-2021 website) • A summary of the paper and its main contributions. • An overall rating for the paper based on the contribution it makes to the field of HCI. a. From 1 (Reject) to 5 (Strong Accept) • A review of the submission based on the following a. Significance of the paper’s contribution to HCI and the benefit that others can gain from the contribution: why do the contribution and benefit matter? b. Originality of the work: what new ideas or approaches are introduced? We want to emphasise that an acceptable paper must make a clear contribution to HCI. c. Validity of the work presented: how confidently can researchers and practitioners use the results? d. Relevant Literature: Has the paper cited and synthesised sufficient amount of previous work? Have they identified research gaps from the literature? Detailed Assessment Criteria: Criteria Points 7 – High Distinction 6 – Distinction 5 – Credit 4 – Borderline Pass 3 or Less – Fail Summary of the Paper & Contributions to HCI 40% Review summarises the paper in an excellent manner; paints a clear picture of the paper Review clearly identifies the main contributions of the paper Strengths and weaknesses of the paper are clearly described Review summarises the paper well Review identifies the paper’s contributions but arguments require further evidence Strengths and weaknesses of the paper are adequately described Review summary is generally fine, but did not cover all aspects of the paper Review identifies the paper’s contributions but arguments require further evidence Review barely touches upon the strengths and weaknesses of the paper Review summary is too short and needs more clarity; it fails to communicate the gist of the paper Review does not fully unpack the main contributions of the paper No clear references to the strengths and weaknesses of the paper No or minimal effort in summarising the paper A haphazard attempt Main Review (significance, originality, validity and relevant literature) 40% Review shows that student has an in-depth understanding of the significance, originality, validity and relevant literature of the paper Points are well-articulated; arguments for accept/reject are insightful and well- developed Review shows that student has a fair understanding of the significance, originality, validity and relevant literature of the paper Points are fairly articulated; arguments for accept/reject are well founded Review does not cover all the criteria (significance, originality, validity and related literature) in the main review; however, other criteria are well described Points needed further articulation; arguments for accept/reject are not particularly well founded Review clearly misses one or more criteria of review (significance, originality, validity and related literature) Points lack clarity; arguments for accept/reject are not well founded No or minimal effort in reviewing the paper Language & Presentation 20% Review is concise and points are well articulated Excellent, few or no grammatical or spelling mistakes Review is well organised Clear, some grammatical or spelling errors Generally good, a few errors, inconsistent spellings Poor, grammar sometimes makes meaning difficult to interpret, Inconsistent spelling or grammar Falls far below the standard for submission and is frequently difficult to follow.
欢迎咨询51作业君
