Select a computer system that requires a software interface, and develop a prototype interface for the interaction

www.anglia.ac.uk

Interaction and Usability

1

Table of Contents 1. Key Information ..................................................................................................... 2 2. Introduction to the Module ..................................................................................... 2 3. Learning Outcomes and Outline Delivery .............................................................. 3 4. Assessment ........................................................................................................... 4 5. Learning Resources .............................................................................................. 9 6. How is My Work Marked? .................................................................................... 10 7. Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards ....................................................... 12 8. Attendance .......................................................................................................... 15 9. Assessment Offences .......................................................................................... 15 10. Module Evaluation ............................................................................................. 18 11. Report on Last Delivery of Module ..................................................................... 18

2

1. Key Information Module Title: Interaction and Usability Module Leader: Arooj Fatima

Com 307, Cambridge Campus. Extension: Email: [email protected]

Module Tutor(s):

Elaine Brown Arooj Fatima

Campus / Building / Room:

Lab 115 Com 307

Extension: 2746

Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Every module has a Module Definition Form (MDF) which is the officially validated record of the module. You can access the MDF for this module in three ways via:

 the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

 the My.Anglia Module Catalogue at www.anglia.ac.uk/modulecatalogue

 Anglia Ruskin’s module search engine facility at www.anglia.ac.uk/modules All modules delivered by Anglia Ruskin University at its main campuses in the UK and at Associate Colleges throughout the UK and overseas are governed by the Academic Regulations. You can view these at www.anglia.ac.uk/academicregs. An extract of the Academic Regulations, known as the Assessment Regulations, is available at this website too (all new students will have received a printed copy as part of their welcome pack). In the unlikely event of any discrepancy between the Academic Regulations and any other publication, including this module guide, the Academic Regulations, as the definitive document, take precedence over all other publications and will be applied in all cases.

2. Introduction to the Module Developing effective human-computer interfaces is a vital area of study. As such it is necessary to have some understanding of a variety of fields including cognitive psychology and usability theory which has recently become a major issue in web design / effective e-commerce implementation. The user experience (beyond traditional usability) is a key design issue. This module seeks to develop understanding of interaction design through the delivery of core theory which is then applied to the analysis, design, implementation and evaluation of a limited functionality horizontal prototype. The student will be introduced to the notion of user mental models (following the approach of Donald Norman) and the extent to which they can be utilized in the design of conceptual models underlying the designed interface. Students will then examine the range of discovery methods used to harvest user, task and environmental data to support user needs analysis comprising user characterisation (including the notion of user personae), task analysis (hierarchical task analysis / action and object taxonomies ) and environmental analysis.

3

Following a discussion of visual style / aesthetics, the preceding analysis will then progress to documented design rationale supporting by logical storyboards showing information, action and navigation screen components. The design is then prototyped in a high level tool equivalent to Visual Basic and subjected to critical introspective and user evaluation. Note that students will be expected to possess some scripting experience prior to starting the module. Students will document all the above to produce the final assignment. The module would be of considerable benefit to those who intend to design interfaces (including web design), become usability / testing consultants or work within user training / user support roles.

3. Learning Outcomes and Outline Delivery All modules at Anglia Ruskin modules are taught on the basis of intended learning outcomes. On successful completion of the module, students will be expected to be able to demonstrate they have met those outcomes. The specific Learning Outcomes for this module are listed below. You will need to be able to demonstrate each one of these in order to pass the module. On successful completion of this module you will be able to: 1. Define and apply relevant theory to the process of determining a user needs analysis for a specific

target application. 2. Design a corresponding interface for target application, justifying design decisions in terms of the

preceding user needs analysis, usability and psychological theory. 3. Implement a limited functionality interface. 4. Critically evaluate the design prototype, including introspective evaluation and user evaluation. Note that the following schedule is indicative of the topics that may be covered. Later weeks are dictated by the progress of the cohort, and the research expertise of your tutor. These topics will be within the area of database design and implementation (cognitive domain) and further facilitate attainment of Learning Outcomes.

Wk Lecture Tutorial

1

Course overview: What is interaction design? Groups

2

Conceptualising interaction Activity - Conceptualising interaction

3

Cognitive theory (understanding the users, mental models)

Activity – User Models

4

Specific user, task, context Activity – User Need Analysis

5

Prototyping Activity - Prototyping

6

Introduction to evaluation Activity – Evaluation + Hand-in Component 1

7

Visual design and information architecture Activity – Visual Design

8

Explaining the assignment Assignment Support

9

The UX of an application Discuss Component 2

4

10

Analytical evaluation Work on Component 2

11

Design for positive affect and behavioural change Work on Component 2

12

Review Review

4. Assessment

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE

Coursework Described on the coversheet as “Coursework: 3000 words”

Assessment Element

010

ASSESSMENT DETAILS

One document. Please see the Assessment Specification at 4.2 below.

Learning Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4 Weighting 15% Marking

Approach Fine Grade

WHAT IS BEING SUBMITTED

One page.

SUBMISSION ‘Due’ Date:

Week 6 Time: Location Tutorial Class

MARKER(S): Arooj Fatima

MODERATOR(S): Elaine Brown

FEEDBACK Where to get your feedback:

Week 7 ‘Post’ Date: In Class

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE

Coursework Described on the coversheet as “Coursework: 3000 words”

Assessment Element

010

ASSESSMENT DETAILS

One document. A portfolio to include each sections listed in the Assignment Specification at 4.2 below.

Learning Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 4 Weighting 85% Marking

Approach Fine Grade

WHAT IS BEING SUBMITTED

One document to Turnitin. Single submission.

SUBMISSION ‘Due’ Date:

06/05/16 Time: 14:00 Location Turnitin

MARKER(S): Arooj Fatima

MODERATOR(S): Elaine Brown

FEEDBACK Where to get your feedback:

Email ‘Post’ Date: 03/06/16

4.1 Submission

Submission is one document to Turnitin.

This assessment consists of documentation to be submitted, by 2pm Friday 06 May, 2016. You must make a reasonable attempt at all parts to obtain a pass grade. This is an individual assignment.

All coursework assignments and other forms of assessment must be submitted by the published deadline. It is your responsibility to know when work is due to be submitted – ignorance of the deadline date will not be accepted as a reason for late or non-submission.

5

All student work which contributes to the eventual outcome of the module (ie: if it determines whether you will pass or fail the module and counts towards the mark you achieve for the module) is submitted via Turnitin/GradeMark®. You CANNOT submit work for this module via the iCentres. Additionally, academic staff CANNOT accept this work directly from you. You must upload your work to Turnitin by 2pm on the due date. Any late work (posted to Turnitin/Grademark®) will NOT be considered and a mark of zero will be awarded for the assessment task in question. You are requested to keep a copy of your work.

Submission process via Turnitin/Grademark® You will have received an email to your STUDENT email account, informing you that you’ve enrolled in a Turnitin/Grademark® class for this module. When you log into Turnitin/Grademark®, you will see information about the module, such as the start date, due date and time (GMT) for your assignment, and the latest date on which your results will be made available (post date), will be given. Once the post date has passed, you will be able to view your feedback and grade.

PLEASE NOTE:

You will only have one opportunity to submit to this Turnitin/Grademark® class so make sure that what you submit is the work you want to be marked. If you submit a draft it cannot be removed and will be marked. If you submit to the wrong class, or the faculty Turnitin® site that you use for generating an originality report, it will be treated as a non-submission and recorded as a fail. Neither of these are subject to mitigation or academic appeal. Please submit before the due date and time given. This is given as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) adjusted for daylight savings, so please work out, in advance, your local time difference. The submission time is the point at which the document finishes uploading, not when it starts. There is sometimes substantial time needed to submit work in this way, depending on the use being made of the system, so it is not recommended to leave electronic submission to the last minute. More detailed information on using Turnitin/Grademark® is available on the VLE, at https://vle.anglia.ac.uk/sites/LTA/Grademark/Content/Home.aspx.

Feedback on your work You are entitled to feedback on your performance for all your assessed work. For all assessment tasks which are not examinations, this is accomplished by a member of academic staff providing your mark and associated comments which will relate to the achievement of the module’s intended learning outcomes and the assessment criteria you were given for the task when it was first issued. This feedback will be available on-line via Turnitin/Grademark or may be sent directly to your Anglia Ruskin e- mail account. Examination scripts are retained by Anglia Ruskin and are not returned to students. However, you are entitled to feedback on your performance in an examination and may request a meeting with the Module Leader or Tutor to see your examination script and to discuss your performance. Anglia Ruskin is committed to providing you with feedback on all assessed work within 20 working days of the submission deadline or the date of an examination. This is extended to 30 days for feedback for a Major Project module (please note that working days excludes those days when Anglia Ruskin University is officially closed; eg: between Christmas and New Year). Personal tutors will offer to read feedback from several modules and help you to address any common themes that may be emerging.

6

On occasion, you will receive feedback and marks for pieces of work that you completed in the earlier stages of the module. We provide you with this feedback as part of the learning experience and to help you prepare for other assessment tasks that you have still to complete. It is important to note that, in these cases, the marks for these pieces of work are unconfirmed. This means that, potentially, marks can change, in either direction! Marks for modules and individual pieces of work become confirmed on the Dates for the Official Publication of Results, which can be checked at www.anglia.ac.uk/results.

4.2 Assessment Specification

Hand-in dates: Week 6 (Part 1) / by 2pm Friday 06 May, 2016 (Part 2)

Select a computer system that requires a software interface, and develop a prototype interface for the interaction. We will brainstorm / evaluate a number of typical applications and discuss your own ideas in tutorial during the earlier weeks.

This assignment will comprise of 2 components involving system proposal, requirements analysis, design, implementation and evaluation of a limited functionality horizontal prototype interface. Unless you have formal Ethics Approval from Anglia Ruskin University, and have completed the compulsory Ethics Training, you are not authorised to gather primary data in any form of questionnaire, or other means. Please ask your tutor if you are not sure what this means.

Note: you are not expected to implement the system itself, just an interface which where appropriate simulates full functionality.

Presentation Component 2 of the assignment should be word processed and not exceed 2500 words, excluding appendices. Component 1 should be stapled to a cover sheet and handed to the tutor during your tutorial session.

7

Component 1 (15%) max 500 words due Week 6 in normal timetabled tutorial Include all of the following:

 Student SID number  Descriptive title

 Brief description of proposed interface (5 marks)

 Initial assumptions. The following questions may help you in exploring the problem

space: How do people currently achieve the task? What problems are there with an existing product or activity? Why do you think there are problems? Why do you think your proposed ideas might be useful? How do you envision people will integrate your proposed interface with how they currently do things in their everyday or working lives? (5 marks)

 Justify which you consider to be the most important Usability and User experience

goals for your interface (5 marks) Remember that these are non-functional requirements.

Component 2 (85%) 2500 words, by 2pm Friday 06 May, 2016, Turnitin

Critical Exploration ( 15 ) In partial fulfilment of Learning Outcome 1: define and apply relevant theory to the process of determining a user needs analysis for a specific target application. Prepare a short critical exploration of your chosen area of interaction and usability. This should be approximately 500 words in length, and use no less than six academic resources (which includes at least 3 journal articles). User Needs Analysis ( 15 ) In partial fulfilment of Learning Outcome 1: define and apply relevant theory to the process of determining a user needs analysis for a specific target application. Based on the secondary research, present a full and relevant user profile, task analysis (for the current system or method of achieving the goals ) and environmental analysis. The user profile and task analysis should derive from your secondary research (the reading that you have done) and relate to your chosen system; generic creations will not be accepted. The source of any persona format used must be acknowledged accordingly (using an in-text citation at the point of use, and full reference at the end of your report). Preliminary Design ( 10 ) In partial fulfilment of Learning Outcome 2, in particular: Design a corresponding interface for target application. Submit a storyboard as an early, low-fidelity prototype, to describe the interaction of the user with the system interface. Ensure that the following are detailed: information / action / navigation components.

8

Detailed design ( 15 ) In partial fulfilment of Learning Outcome 2, in particular: justify design decisions in terms of the preceding user needs analysis, usability and psychological theory. Provide a concise yet detailed and well-structured design rationale. You may find it helpful to include your findings from your critical exploration above. Consider design decisions under the following 3 separate categories:  Decisions relating to the User Needs Analysis ( user profile / task analysis / environmental

analysis ) ( 5 )  Decisions relating to Usability (5)  Decisions relating to Cognitive Issues ( inc. metaphor/ idiom / choice of

language and icons / addressing users memory and attention limitations / mental models ). ( 5 )

* * Note : a general unstructured description of the interface with passing mention of some of the above is not sufficient for work at this level. Implementation ( 15 ) In fulfilment of Learning Outcome 3: Implement a limited functionality interface. Provide comprehensive screen dumps (the external examiner needs to see these to appreciate your work ). Evaluation ( 15 ) In fulfilment of Learning Outcome 4: Critically evaluate the design prototype, including introspective evaluation and user evaluation. Evaluate the usability of the interface by honest and insightful testing. Outline / expose known bugs and design errors / areas of weakness. Link to theory and the user mental model. Discuss how the interface could be improved in future prototype iterations. Note that marvellous interfaces that rely solely on intuition with no underlying research, analysis and theoretical rationale cannot pass! Marks in the 1 and 2.1 categories will undoubtedly demonstrate wider reading / web research. We expect your work to be coherent, that is to evidence a consistent approach through critical exploration, scenario, task analysis (logical representation of the task), storyboard (initial graphical representation of the interaction to achieve the task), design decisions (based on previously identified usability and user experience goals), screen captures (to illustrate the task identified in previous steps), Cognitive Walkthrough (using the screen captures to illustrate the process).

Grade Criteria: A ( 70+ ) Meets all or nearly all specification checkpoints, displaying insight / novel perspectives. Elegant yet economical expression of ideas. High degree of technical proficiency in design. Extends discussion of concepts beyond the taught material. Mastery of expression. Insightful analysis of additional material. Original and creative design prototype displaying outstanding usability. Full / interpreted evaluation. Reflective and critical understanding of the role of models in user centred design. B: ( 60+ ) Meets nearly all specification checkpoints. Clear grasp of most issues. Well expressed ideas, technically effective with few flaws. High competence, but perhaps a slight lack of flair / initiative / independence. Not enough lateral thought / wider reading. Clear expression and organisation. Well considered analysis. Competent and usable design prototype. Full user evaluation. Critical understanding of the role of models.

9

C: ( 50+ ) Fair coverage of specification. Some omissions. Principles not always clearly grasped. Work is coherent, but there is some difficulties with expression of ideas. Some technical weaknesses. Reasonable standard of work and attainment. Typically submitted by a student who is happy to cover most of the points required yet has not developed a truly personal approach to their work. Minimal analysis. Usable yet uninspiring design prototype. Minimal evaluation. D: ( 40+ ) Poor coverage of specification checkpoints. Poor expression of ideas and underlying principles / technically flawed. Has experienced problems with the subject. Trivial user needs analysis. Lacking evidence of grasp key points / superficial coverage of problem set. Critical exploration lacking depth. Design prototype needing greater evidence of engagement with material. Evaluation needing evidence of greater engagement with material.

5. Learning Resources

5.1. Library The ReadingLists@Anglia project (http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk/index.html) is the preferred way to create and publicise module Reading Lists. Within the Faculty of Science and Technology it is expected that every module will have at least the Essential Reading within ReadingLists@Anglia, in addition to the University requirement for levels 3 & 4, linked from the text following these instructions. Module Resource List http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk/modules/mod002591.html All the Reading/Resource Lists http://readinglists.anglia.ac.uk/index.html Library Contact Faculty of Science and Technology [email protected]

10

6. How is My Work Marked? After you have handed your work in or you have completed an examination, Anglia Ruskin undertakes a series of activities to assure that our marking processes are comparable with those employed at other universities in the UK and that your work has been marked fairly, honestly and consistently. These include:

 Anonymous marking – your name is not attached to your work so, at the point of marking, the lecturer does not know whose work he/she is considering. When you undertake an assessment task where your identity is known (eg: a presentation or Major Project), it is marked by more than one lecturer (known as double marking)

 Internal moderation – a sample of all work for each assessment task in each module is moderated by other Anglia Ruskin staff to check the standards and consistency of the marking

 External moderation – a sample of student work for all modules is moderated by external examiners – experienced academic staff from other universities (and sometimes practitioners who represent relevant professions) - who scrutinise your work and provide Anglia Ruskin academic staff with feedback, advice and assurance that the marking of your work is comparable to that in other UK universities. Many of Anglia Ruskin’s staff act as external examiners at other universities.

 Departmental Assessment Panel (DAP) – performance by all students on all modules is discussed and approved at the appropriate DAPs which are attended by all relevant Module Leaders and external examiners. Anglia Ruskin has over 25 DAPs to cover all the different subjects we teach.

This module falls within the remit of the Computing and Technology DAP. The following external examiners are appointed to this DAP and will oversee the assessment of this and other modules within the DAP’s remit:

External Examiner’s Name Academic Institution

Mr Islah Ali-MacLachlan Birmingham City University

Mr Steven Bennett University of Hertfordshire

Dr Eric Chowanietz De Montfort University

Prof Merlyne De Souza University of Sheffield

Prof Steven Furnell Plymouth University

Dr Gerhard Hancke City University of Hong Kong

Mr Andrew Smith The Open University

The above list is correct at the time of publication. However, external examiners are appointed at various points throughout the year. An up-to-date list of external examiners is available to students and staff at www.anglia.ac.uk/eeinfo. Anglia Ruskin’s marking process is represented in the flowchart below:

11

Student submits work / sits

examination

Work collated and passed to Module Leader

Work is marked by Module Leader and Module Tutor(s)1. All marks collated by Module Leader

for ALL locations2

Internal moderation samples selected. Moderation undertaken

by a second academic3

Unconfirmed marks and feedback to students within 20 working

days (30 working days for Major Projects)

External moderation samples selected and moderated by

External Examiners4

Marks submitted to DAP5 for consideration and approval

Marks Approved by DAP5 and forwarded to Awards Board

Any issues?

Any issues?

Students receive initial (unconfirmed)

feedback

Confirmed marks issued to students

via e-Vision

M a

rk in

g S

ta g e

In te

rn a l M

o d e ra

ti o n S

ta g e

E

x te

rn a

l M

o d e

ra ti o

n S

ta g

e

D A

P 4 S

ta g e

YES

YES

NO

NO

Flowchart of Anglia Ruskin’s Marking Processes

1 All work is marked anonymously or double marked where identity of the student is known (eg: in a presentation) 2 The internal (and external) moderation process compares work from all locations where the module is delivered

(eg: Cambridge, Chelmsford, Peterborough, Malaysia, India, Trinidad etc.) 3 The sample for the internal moderation process comprises a minimum of eight pieces of work or 10% (whichever

is the greater) for each marker and covers the full range of marks 4 Only modules at levels 5, 6 and 7 are subject to external moderation (unless required for separate reasons). The

sample for the external moderation process comprises a minimum of eight pieces of work or 10% (whichever is the greater) for the entire module and covers the full range of marks

5 DAP: Departmental Assessment Panel – Anglia Ruskin has over 25 different DAPs to reflect our subject coverage

12

7. Assessment Criteria and Marking Standards On the following page are the Generic Assessment Criteria for Level 5 at Anglia Ruskin. More specific marking criteria will be published on the VLE, and discussed during tutorials. Additionally, in accordance with our Senate Code of Practice on the Assessment of Students (see section 8.3): A piece of written work may be penalised if: • The handwriting is difficult to read; • There are multiple crossings out; • The layout causes an unacceptable degree of confusion; • Misspellings interfere with communication or are the result of consistent carelessness and failure to

check adequately work submitted; • Sentence structure is inappropriate to the content and the word order interferes with understanding; • Punctuation causes confusion for the reader as to the perceived meaning of the sentence; • Style is inappropriate to the subject matter (e.g. use of slang terms, excessive formality or informality); • The text lacks cohesion and coherence.

13

ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITY GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS

LEVEL 5

Level 5 reflects continuing development from Level 4. At this level students are not fully autonomous but are able to take responsibility

for their own learning with some direction. Students are expected to locate an increasingly detailed theoretical knowledge of the discipline within a more general intellectual context, and to demonstrate this through forms of expression which go beyond the merely descriptive or imitative. Students are expected to demonstrate analytical competence in terms both of problem identification and resolution, and to develop their skill sets as required.

Mark Bands Outcome

Generic Learning Outcomes (GLOs) (Academic Regulations, Section 2)

Knowledge & Understanding Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills

C h

a ra

c te

ri s ti

c s o

f S

tu d

e n

t A

c h

ie v

e m

e n

t b

y M

a rk

in g

B a n

d

90-100%

Achieves module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level

Exceptional information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with extraordinary originality and autonomy.

Exceptional management of learning resources, with a higher degree of autonomy/ exploration that clearly exceeds the brief. Exceptional structure/accurate expression. Demonstrates exceptional intellectual originality and imagination. Exceptional team/practical/ professional skills.

80-89% Outstanding information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with clear originality and autonomy

Outstanding management of learning resources, with a degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the brief. An exemplar of structured/accurate expression. Demonstrates outstanding intellectual originality and imagination. Outstanding team/practical/professional skills

70-79% Excellent knowledge base, exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with considerable originality and autonomy

Excellent management of learning resources, with a degree of autonomy/exploration that may exceed the brief. Structured/accurate expression. Excellent academic/ intellectual skills and team/practical/professional skills

60-69% Good knowledge base; explores and analyses the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with some originality, detail and autonomy

Good management of learning with consistent self- direction. Structured and mainly accurate expression. Good academic/intellectual skills and team/practical/ professional skills

50-59% Satisfactory knowledge base that begins to explore and analyse the theory and ethical issues of the discipline

Satisfactory use of learning resources. Acceptable structure/accuracy in expression. Acceptable level of academic/intellectual skills, going beyond description at times. Satisfactory team/practical/professional skills. Inconsistent self-direction

40-49%

A marginal pass in module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level

Basic knowledge base with some omissions and/or lack of theory of discipline and its ethical dimension

Basic use of learning resources with little self-direction. Some input to team work. Some difficulties with academic/ intellectual skills. Largely imitative and descriptive. Some difficulty with structure and accuracy in expression, but developing practical/professional skills

30-39%

A marginal fail in

module outcome(s) related to GLO at this level. Possible compensation. Sat- isfies qualifying mark

Limited knowledge base; limited understanding of discipline and its ethical dimension

Limited use of learning resources, working towards self- direction. General difficulty with structure and accuracy in expression. Weak academic/intellectual skills. Still mainly imitative and descriptive. Team/practical/professional skills that are not yet secure

20-29%

Fails to achieve module outcome(s) related to this GLO.

Qualifying mark not satisfied. No compensation available

Little evidence of an information base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline and its ethical dimension

Little evidence of use of learning resources. No self- direction, with little evidence of contribution to team work. Very weak academic/intellectual skills and significant difficulties with structure/expression. Very imitative and descriptive. Little evidence of practical/professional skills

10-19% Inadequate information base. Inadequate understanding of discipline and its ethical dimension

Inadequate use of learning resources. No attempt at self- direction with inadequate contribution to team work. Very weak academic/intellectual skills and major difficulty with structure/expression. Wholly imitative and descriptive. Inadequate practical/professional skills

1-9% No evidence of any information base. No understanding of discipline and its ethical dimension

No evidence of use of learning resources of understanding of self-direction with no evidence of contribution to team work. No evidence academic/intellectual skills and incoherent structure/ expression. No evidence of practical/ professional skills

0% Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the

assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes

14

15

8. Attendance Attending all your classes is very important and one of the best ways to help you succeed in this module. In accordance with the Student Charter, you are expected to arrive on time and take an active part in all your timetabled classes. If you are unable to attend a class for a valid reason (eg: illness), please contact your Module Tutor and our Administration Team at [email protected]. Anglia Ruskin will closely monitor the attendance of all students and will contact you by e-mail if you have been absent without notice for two weeks. Please remember to “tap-in” using your Ruskin card at every taught session. Continued absence can result in various consequences including the termination of your registration as you will be considered to have withdrawn from your studies. International students who are non-EEA nationals and in possession of entry clearance/leave to remain as a student (Tier 4 student visa) are required to be in regular attendance at Anglia Ruskin. Failure to do so is considered to be a breach of national immigration regulations. Failure to do so will have serious implications for your immigration status in the UK. Anglia Ruskin, like all British Universities, is statutorily obliged to inform UK Visa & Immigration (Home Office) of significant unauthorised absences by any student visa holders.

9. Assessment Offences As an academic community, we recognise that the principles of truth, honesty and mutual respect are central to the pursuit of knowledge. Behaviour that undermines those principles weakens the community, both individually and collectively, and diminishes our values. We are committed to ensuring that every student and member of staff is made aware of the responsibilities s/he bears in maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and how those standards are protected. You are reminded that any work that you submit must be your own. When you are preparing your work for submission, it is important that you understand the various academic conventions that you are expected to follow in order to make sure that you do not leave yourself open to accusations of plagiarism (eg: the correct use of referencing, citations, footnotes etc.) and that your work maintains its academic integrity.

Definitions of Assessment Offences Plagiarism Plagiarism is theft and occurs when you present someone else’s work, words, images, ideas, opinions or discoveries, whether published or not, as your own. It is also when you take the artwork, images or computer-generated work of others, without properly acknowledging where this is from or you do this without their permission. You can commit plagiarism in examinations, but it is most likely to happen in coursework, assignments, portfolios, essays, dissertations and so on. Examples of plagiarism include:

 directly copying from written work, physical work, performances, recorded work or images, without saying where this is from;

 using information from the internet or electronic media (such as DVDs and CDs) which belongs to someone else, and presenting it as your own;

 rewording someone else’s work, without referencing them; and

16

 handing in something for assessment which has been produced by another student or person. It is important that you do not plagiarise – intentionally or unintentionally – because the work of others and their ideas are their own. There are benefits to producing original ideas in terms of awards, prizes, qualifications, reputation and so on. To use someone else’s work, words, images, ideas or discoveries is a form of theft. Collusion Collusion is similar to plagiarism as it is an attempt to present another’s work as your own. In plagiarism the original owner of the work is not aware you are using it, in collusion two or more people may be involved in trying to produce one piece of work to benefit one individual, or plagiarising another person’s work. Examples of collusion include:

 agreeing with others to cheat;

 getting someone else to produce part or all of your work;

 copying the work of another person (with their permission);

 submitting work from essay banks;

 paying someone to produce work for you; and

 allowing another student to copy your own work. Many parts of university life need students to work together. Working as a team, as directed by your tutor, and producing group work is not collusion. Collusion only happens if you produce joint work to benefit of one or more person and try to deceive another (for example the assessor). Cheating Cheating is when someone aims to get unfair advantage over others. Examples of cheating include:

 taking unauthorised material into the examination room;

 inventing results (including experiments, research, interviews and observations);

 handing your own previously graded work back in;

 getting an examination paper before it is released;

 behaving in a way that means other students perform poorly;

 pretending to be another student; and

 trying to bribe members of staff or examiners.

Help to Avoid Assessment Offences Most of our students are honest and want to avoid committing assessment offences. We have a variety of resources, advice and guidance available to help make sure you can develop good academic skills. We will make sure that we make available consistent statements about what we expect. In accordance with our ‘Academic Honesty Policy’, you will be able to do tutorials on being honest in your work from the library (http://anglia.libguides.com/GAP) and other central support services and faculties, and will be able to review your work for plagiarism using ‘Turnitin®UK’ (where appropriate), an online service for matched-text. You can get advice on how to use honestly the work of others in your own work from the library website (www.libweb.anglia.ac.uk/referencing/referencing.htm) and your lecturer and personal tutor. Turnitin®UK will produce a report which clearly shows if passages in your work have been matched with another source. Originality of assessment is an academic judgement and there is no

17

generally acceptable upper or lower similarity score. You may talk about the matched-text in the ‘Turnitin®UK’ report with a member of academic staff to see where you may need to improve your academic practice. If you are not sure whether the way you are working meets our requirements, you should talk to your personal tutor, module tutor or other member of academic staff. They will be able to help you and tell you about other resources that will help you develop your academic skills.

Procedures for Assessment Offences An assessment offence is the general term used to define cases where a student has tried to get unfair academic advantage in an assessment for himself or herself or another student. In cases where the Module Leader suspects that the assignment submitted is not the work of the student, and may have been produced by another person, the Module Leader informs the Director of Studies of the suspicion of an assessment offence. In the process of considering the academic integrity of the work, the Director of Studies may invite the student to a meeting, with the Module Leader, to answer questions about the assignment. We will fully investigate all cases of suspected assessment offences. If we prove that you have committed an assessment offence, an appropriate penalty will be imposed which, for the most serious offences, includes expulsion from Anglia Ruskin. For full details of our assessment offences policy and procedures, see Section 10 of the Academic Regulations at: www.anglia.ac.uk/academicregs.

18

10. Module Evaluation During the second half of the delivery of this module, you will be asked to complete a module evaluation questionnaire to help us obtain your views on all aspects of the module. This is an extremely important process which helps us to continue to improve the delivery of the module in the future and to respond to issues that you bring to our attention. The module report in section 11 of this module guide includes a section which comments on the feedback we received from other students who have studied this module previously. Your questionnaire response is anonymous. Please help us to help you and other students at Anglia Ruskin by completing the Module Evaluation survey. We very much value our students’ views and it is very important to us that you provide feedback to help us make improvements. In addition to the Module Evaluation process, you can send any comment on anything related to your experience at Anglia Ruskin to [email protected] at any time.

11. Report on Last Delivery of Module The Module Report for this module can be found on the VLE