代写AT2: Critical review帮做R语言

AT2: Critical review

Overview:

For this assignment you will:

a) Read a recent academic paper that reports on an investigation into user needs conducted as part of an interaction design or human-computer interaction project. Below, you will find a list of four papers available to review. You need to select which paper you plan to review. Once you have made this selection, we recommend that you focus on reviewing the introduction, method, findings, and discussion sections of the paper.

b) Write a 1000-word review of the paper, due on Monday 26th August. See below for details of what to include in the review.

This is an individual assignment requiring 20-25 hours of work. It addresses the following Intended Learning Outcomes:

Critique the common approaches used in fieldwork for design and identify the benefits and limitations of these approaches

Describe and apply ethical and social considerations in relation to conducting fieldwork and designing and deploying digital technologies in society

Step 1: Select and read a recent academic article on fieldwork for design

You can select to review one of the following articles. These articles (papers) have been chosen because they describe studies that investigated user needs in settings that can be described as "third places", aligning with the topic of the group project this semester. Each paper provides an example of how fieldwork for design can be conducted in HCI research projects. Note that not every paper leads to design requirements or recommendations, but they do provide insights into people's activities and needs in the situations the authors studied.

Step 2: Write your review

After reading the paper carefully (focusing on the introduction, methods, and findings), you will write a critical review that focuses on critiquing the fieldwork for design methods reported in the paper. Your review should be 1,000 words long (+/- 200 words and excluding references). The review should include the following:

Brief introduction (100 words app.)

In a few sentences (and your own words), provide a brief introduction to the aims and methods of the study. What were the authors trying to achieve in this paper? How did they go about doing this?

Critique of methods used (500 words app.)

Discuss the strengths and limitations of the methods used in this study for understanding people and informing design:

In what ways were the chosen methods appropriate for meeting the aims of the study? How did they help the authors gain an in-depth understanding of the people/activities being investigated?

What, if any, were the limitations of the methods used? Do you think other methods could/should have been used to gain different insights into people's needs in this setting?

Reflection on ethical issues (200 words app.)

Discuss any ethical issues for conducting fieldwork in this setting.

What ethical issues needed to be considered in this investigation? How were they managed?

Were there any ethical issues the authors did not address?

Reflection on social considerations (200 words app.)

What do you think are the key social issues to consider when designing technology for use in this setting?

Note:

When writing your review, you should use additional sources to develop and support your arguments. For example, you might read and reference publications that provide further details about the methods used in the paper. In your review, you should include two or more references to additional academic publications (as well as the paper you reviewed) to support your arguments.

The recommended word limits for each section provided above are estimates only. You will need to write concisely and edit carefully to ensure the review is within the overall limit of 1000 words (+/- 200, excluding references).

Assessment criteria:

Your review will be marked on the following criteria:

Understanding (5 points): Does the review demonstrate sufficient understanding of the method used in this paper?

Critique (6 points): Is there evidence of a critical review of the strengths and weaknesses of the method?

Reflection (6 points): Is there an insightful reflection on the ethical issues raised by the method and social considerations for designing technology to use in this setting?

Clarity and sources (3 points): Is the writing clear and well-structured? Does the review include appropriate use of academic sources?