Interaction with Machine Learning
Formal assessment
Formal assessment will be based on two pieces of work, to be submitted at the end of term:
- Mini-project report, in the format of research paper (80%)
- Reflective diary, binding together 8 weekly entries plus a final summary, documenting the development of your own thinking over the period of the course (20%)
Reflective diary format
Drafts of reflective diary entries can be submitted via Moodle each week, then final versions of all entries compiled together for the final submission. Each entry should answer the following three questions, with 150-200 words each:
- Summarise in your own words the contents of the lecture.
- How does this relate to some of the other literature you have come across, (e.g. academic literature from the reading list, or influential books, or think-pieces from high-quality media outlets)? Use formal citations.
- What opportunities for further research and interesting questions / conflicts do you see in this topic?
The final summary in the reflective diary should address the following three questions, also with 150-200 words each:
- Summary of your own previous background in HCI
- Your assessment of the current state of the art in intelligent user interfaces.
- A specific opportunity for future research exploiting the issues explored in the course.
Assessment criteria
The assessment criteria for both the reflective diary and the final report will be the standard criteria applied across the MPhil ACS:
- 90-100% - Original interpretation extending beyond taught material.
- 80-89% - Demonstrates significant insight or creativity.
- 75-79% - Demonstrates critical thought and insight.
- 70-74% - Clearly presented. Evidence of understanding, but may contain some faults. Execution basically good
- 60-69% - Adequate presentation, lacking clarity or detail in places, or containing irrelevant material. Mostly demonstrates understanding, but with occasional mistakes.
- 50-59% - Somewhat incoherent, with important omissions, or irrelevant material. Some serious flaws in understanding.
- 40-49% - Work is poor and unstructured, with some parts missing. Little evidence of understanding, many inconsistencies and flaws.
- 30-39% - All aspects have been handled badly. Assigned work is substantially absent, incomprehensible or wrong. Little evidence of understanding, but at least mentions most of the relevant ideas.
- 20-29% - Almost total failure to engage with task. Assigned work is substantially absent, incomprehensible or wrong. Some reference to relevant ideas, but many are entirely missing.
- 0-19% - No evidence of any understanding. Marks may be given for presentation.
Continuous feedback
In addition to these summative assignments, students may submit draft versions via Moodle, for written provisional grades and oral feedback during class sessions.
Work for provisional grading and discussion during class sessions should be submitted via Moodle by noon on that day.
- Week 2 - 200 word summary of research question
- Week 3 - 400 word description of study design
- Week 5 - 400 word draft of literature review for final report
- Week 6 - 200 word draft of introduction to final report
- Week 7 - 400 word draft of results section for final report
- Week 8 - 200 word draft of discussion section for final report
Provisional grades will be given to this draft work, to provide an indication of how these elements would be assessed if they appeared in the final formal submission. These grades are only for information - the final piece of work is also expected to demonstrate a coherent research argument, so the grade may not simply correspond to an average of grades received for individual draft submissions.
- A+ excellent, consistent with final grades in range 85-100
- A very good, consistent with final grades in range 75-85
- B good, consistent with final grades in range 70-80
- C acceptable, consistent with final grades in range 60-70
- D disappointing, consistent with risk that a pass grade will not be achieved
- E unacceptable, consistent with fail