Design Practice usyd interview and report
Empathize and learn report: adopt the mindset of a beginner and use humancentered design approaches to learn from an expert • • • • This is an individual assessment Assessment type: written report Length: ~1000 words Weight: 20% Description: For this assessment, you are asked to find someone who’s an expert or very good at something you know little or nothing about (such as their job, hobby, sports, playing a musical instrument, playing a computer game, etc. — up to you! It doesn’t need to be someone famous or an expert like an astronaut or a theoretical physicist, it can be a plumber, someone good at cooking, or someone who’s really into World of Warcraft — just try to find someone who knows a lot about something you don’t know much about). Your task is to find ~1-2 hours for an in-depth qualitative interview. In this interview, adopt the mindset of a beginner of the topic/domain, but apply your newly acquired (or improved) design skills in qualitative interviewing techniques. If it is at all possible, try your best to set up an in-person interview, i.e. when you sit down next to your interviewee in real life. Also, you might want to pick a location that suits your location and that will make you both feel relaxed but where you are also free to talk without being constantly interrupted. Perhaps a quiet coffee shop? Or in the interviewee’s home? While it is a last resort, please try not to conduct these interviews virtually using Zoom, Teams, FaceTime, etc. That’s a very different type of interview from interviewing someone in real life, and you’ll pick up a lot more details and nuances if you interview someone face to face. Structure your interview well in advance. You should prepare several themes and headline topics, and for each theme have a set of questions and follow-up questions that dig into that theme from different angles. Try asking different types of questions, from small to large, and also ask follow-up questions. If they say something you don’t understand, don’t hesitate to ask them to explain. Use the material from week 2’s tutorial session to prepare for your interview. After the interview, write up your findings in a report (~1000 words, written entirely in English). Please export your reports to PDF format before uploading them. Upload your report below using Canvas. Your written report should contain: • • • • • • Who were you interviewing and why did you pick this person? What was the setup for the interview? What did you learn about their profession/expertise? What seems to be important skills in what they do? What types of questions worked? Did you ask any questions that didn’t work or you didn’t get the type of response you were expecting? Why? How did it feel? Where you uncomfortable or relaxed? If you reflect on this activity, what will you do differently next time? Assessment is due March 22 at 23:59, submit your report using Canvas Academic integrity While the University is aware that the vast majority of students and staff act ethically and honestly, it is opposed to and will not tolerate academic integrity breaches and will treat all allegations seriously. Further information on academic integrity, and the resources available to all students can be found on the academic integrity pages on the current students website: https://sydney.edu.au/students/academic-integrity.html. We use Turnitin, which includes AI detection, to detect potential instances of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breach. If such matches indicate evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breaches, your teacher is required to report your work for further investigation. You may only use artificial intelligence and writing assistance tools in assessment tasks if you are permitted to by your unit coordinator, and if you do use them, you must also acknowledge this in your work, either in a footnote or an acknowledgement section. Further information for on research integrity and ethics for postgraduate research students and students undertaking research-focussed coursework such as Honours and capstone research projects can be also be found on the current students website: https://sydney.edu.au/students/research-integrityethics.html. Compliance statement In submitting this work, I acknowledge I have understood the following: • • • • • • • • I have read and understood the University of Sydney’s Academic Integrity Policy 2022. The work is substantially my own and where any parts of this work are not my own I have indicated this by acknowledging the source of those parts of the work and enclosed any quoted text in quotation marks. I have acknowledged any assistance provided in preparing the work including the use of copy-editing, proof-reading, and automated writing and drawing tools (including artificial intelligence (AI), reference generators, translation software, grammar checkers, but not spell checkers). The work has not previously been submitted in part or in full for assessment in another unit unless I have been given permission by my unit of study coordinator to do so. The work will be submitted to similarity detection software (Turnitin) and a copy of the work will be retained in Turnitin’s paper repository for future similarity checking. Note: work submitted by postgraduate research students for research purposes is not added to Turnitin’s paper repository. Engaging in plagiarism or academic dishonesty in coursework will, if detected, lead to the University commencing proceedings under the Academic Integrity Policy 2022. and the Academic Integrity Procedures 2022. Engaging in plagiarism or academic dishonesty in research-focussed work will lead to the University commencing proceedings under the Research Code of Conduct and the Academic Integrity Procedures 2022. Engaging another person to complete part or all of the submitted work will, if detected, lead to the University commencing proceedings against me for potential student misconduct under the University of Sydney (Student Discipline) Rule 2016. Research Report Research Report Criteria Context and Background Ratings 5 to >4.25 pts Pts / 5 pts Research Report Research Report Criteria Ratings view longer description High Distinction Report has a clear, well-written and suitable introduction. In-depth explanation of the purpose of report. Explanation of organisation and context of research (i.e. the setting, the interviewee, etc.) is perfectly detailed. 4.25 to >3.75 pts Distinction Introduction is clear and wellwritten. Clear explanation and understanding of the purpose of analysis report. Clear explanation and understanding of organisation and context. 3.75 to >3.25 pts Credit Introduction is well thought-out and relevant. Evidence of understanding of the purpose of the report. Good explanation of organisation and context. 3.25 to >2.5 pts Pass Introduction is logical and somewhat convincing. Evidence of purpose of report is present but poorly explained. Adequate explanation of organisation and context. 2.5 to >1.25 pts Low Fail Poor introduction. Limited explanation of the purpose of the report. Limited description of Pts Research Report Research Report Criteria Ratings Pts chosen organisation or context. Organisation and context poorly explained or missing key details. 1.25 to >0 pts Fail No introduction. No explanation of the purpose of the report. No description of chosen organisation or context. Organisation and/or context not explained. Methods & Analysis view longer description 5 to >4.25 pts High Distinction Confident and accurate use of a number of different methods and techniques. Confident understating of purpose of the different techniques. Methods and techniques refined and clearly linked to selected context. Confident and accurate analysis. Critical and non-trivial analysis and synthesis of gathered data. 4.25 to >3.75 pts Distinction Excellent use of multiple methods and techniques. Excellent understating of purpose of the techniques used. Methods and techniques used clearly link to the selected context. Analysis and synthesis conducted and findings are non-trivial. 3.75 to >3.25 pts Credit / 5 pts Research Report Research Report Criteria Ratings Multiple methods and techniques attempted and used in appropriate ways. Good grasp of purpose and use of different techniques. Evidence of analysis and synthesis, explained in a relevant way. 3.25 to >2.5 pts Pass Methods and techniques used adequately, however poorly linked to the identified context and purpose. Methods and techniques used are of some relevance for chosen context. Analysis and synthesis is somewhat explained. 2.5 to >1.25 pts Low Fail Methods and techniques used but in poor or inappropriate way. Choices are not linked to the identified context. Methods and techniques used are only somewhat relevant for chosen context. Limited or poor evidence of analysis and synthesis and/or poorly explained. 1.25 to >0 pts Fail No relevant methods and techniques used. Methods not linked to context or purpose. No evidence of analysis or synthesis. Pts Research Report Research Report Criteria Ratings Pts Framing Insights & Self-reflection view longer description 5 to >4.25 pts High Distinction Substantial discussion and interpretation of findings. Interesting insights identified and well supported by contextual understanding. Substantial selfreflection and discussion about author’s own performance and experience conducting this research. 4.25 to >3.75 pts Distinction Good discussion of evaluation of findings, but disconnected from context. Ability to critically discuss findings are in-depth and linked back to contextual understanding. Good self-reflection and discussion about author’s own performance and experience conducting this research. 3.75 to >3.25 pts Credit Some discussion of evaluation of findings, but disconnected from context. Understanding of how findings link to contextual understanding. Good self-reflection and discussion about author’s own performance and experience conducting this research. 3.25 to >2.5 pts Pass Adequate discussion. Limited link between findings and contextual / 5 pts Research Report Research Report Criteria Ratings Pts understanding. Evidence of sources of information on context. Adequate self-reflection and discussion about author’s own performance and experience conducting this research. 2.5 to >1.25 pts Low Fail Limited discussion. No link between findings and contextual understanding. Limited evidence of sources of information on context. Limited self-reflection and discussion about author’s own performance and experience conducting this research. 1.25 to >0 pts Fail No or poor discussion / evaluation. No insights discussed. No or poor self-reflection and discussion about author’s own performance and experience conducting this research. Communication / Documentation view longer description 5 to >4.25 pts High Distinction Exemplary framing of report in accordance to assessment brief. Professional presentation of work. Professional standard of report structure. Detailed and substantial evidence of research. 4.25 to >3.75 pts Distinction / 5 pts Research Report Research Report Criteria Ratings Logical framing of report in accordance to assessment brief. Excellent presentation of work. Clear, logical report structure. Substantial evidence of research. 3.75 to >3.25 pts Credit Report framed in accordance to assessment brief. Sound presentation of work. Clear and logical report structure. Evidence of research included. 3.25 to >2.5 pts Pass Report framing is only somewhat appropriate. Basic presentation of work. Uninspired report structure. Unclear evidence of research. 2.5 to >1.25 pts Low Fail Report is poorly framed. Poor presentation of work. Lack of care taken with report structure. Limited evidence of research. 1.25 to >0 pts Fail Report is not framed in accordance to assessment brief. Poor presentation of work. Poor report structure. No or poor evidence of research. Total Points: 0 Pts
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
