This is your first checkpoint for the project.
The goal is to focus on prototyping or piloting the core element of your research idea.
Reflect on your proposal and its core insight or question.
What is the pilot study or prototype that would most clearly examine it? Do not spend much time working on aspects of the project that are orthogonal to your research question.
For example, if you are testing a new method of authenticating based on dancing, focus on implementing the interaction and recognizing the user, not the entire underlying infrastructure of connecting your new authentication technique to an end-point.
If you are creating a system, the deliverable is a basic working prototype of your research idea. It does not need to be polished, but you should have the basic idea at a functional prototype level. If you are running a study, the deliverable is pilot results from at least five people who ran through an early version of your study, including a first round of data analysis. Submit any relevant materials, including a one-page document describing your project status, goals and a rough plan for the rest of the semester (including what you plan to do by the second progress report). We'll also be using the last 30 minutes of class to show off our projects to each other, so bring any demo or study materials you've got.
Insufficient |
Adequate |
Proficient |
Mastery |
|
| Depth (8 pts) | 2: The system or study is too thin to evaluate the research question. Critical components are missing.
|
4: The system or study has a basic pilot/prototype, but it is only barely at a depth to point to next steps for the research.
|
6: The system or study has a pilot/prototype that exercises the main research idea, provides evidence of its final feasability, and points to next steps for the research.
|
8: The system or study has struck at the core of the idea and demonstrates clear directions for the research.
|
| Focus (3 pts) | 1: Too diffuse: attempting to prototype/pilot too much of the idea at once meant that the core question was largely left unexplored.
|
2: The system or study explores the main question or insight, but also spent significant time on less critical aspects of the research.
|
3: The system or study focuses directly on the most important parts of the research question.
|
|
| Plan (2 pts) | 1: Plan is underspecified, not ambitious enough, or too ambitious.
|
2: Plan clearly details the goals for Round Two and a realistic timeline to achieve them.
|
||
We are nearing the end of the semester, so it's time to start showing off your best stuff. This is your last checkpoint before the final project presentations. The goal is to have the core element of your research project complete. If it's a system, that means that the core research functionality should be implemented, and (perhaps with an additional coat of paint to come soon) ready for an evaluation. If it's a study, you should have your final materials complete, the study should have at least ten participants so far, and you should have a first statistical/qualitative analysis of your data complete. We'll also be using the last 30 minutes of class to show off our projects to each other, so bring any demo, study materials, or data that you've got.
5-7 pages limit except for prototype screenshots (Recommended)
Research Goals/Questions:
Reiterate your research objectives.
Grading Criteria (Depth):
Evaluate how your research objectives contribute to meaningful research in the context of existing personal health informatics apps and research. Also, assess how well your research goals encompass the core interface designs, features, and functionalities of your prototype.
Prototype Brief Explanation (one-paragraph):
Describe how your prototype has been designed to align with your research goals.
Key Features (four or five features): Highlight any significant changes in key features between progress reports 1 and 2, and elucidate the reasons behind these changes. Explain how these changes enhance your ability to achieve your research goals.
Grading criteria (Focus)
Your Final Evaluation Plan:
User Study Realism:
Detail the steps your team has taken to enhance the realism of the user study. Have you collected real user data to incorporate into your prototype? Describe the collected data and explain how it is integrated into the prototype to create a personalized and realistic user experience.
Grading criteria (Depth): Assess the extent to which the collected data contributes to personalization and realism and how it supports your research goals.
User Study Protocol:
Explain how each key feature will be evaluated to address your research goals, focusing less on interface usability (e.g., how easy or hard to use this interface).
Provide sample interview or survey questions that are related to each important feature or aspect of your interface design. (When you mention each feature, please connect each feature to the associated prototype design using e.g., Figure 1-a or Figure 2-b)
Grading criteria (Focus):
Evaluate whether these questions cover all the important features of your prototype and are appropriate for addressing your research objectives.
Brief Evaluation Results:
Specify the number of participants your team plans to recruit.
Indicate the number of participants who have participated in the user study thus far.
Summarize the insights gained from your user study, including data analysis such as descriptive statistics from survey results and thematic analysis of interview results.
Grading criteria (Depth):
Evaluate whether the results summary from your analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of your research questions.
Plans:
Outline your plans and expected outcomes leading up to the final presentation (Nov 29 or Dec 1).
Include plans and expected outcomes until the final report (Dec 8).
Grading criteria (Plans)