Comments on Lessons to be Learned

sean@cheesebikini.com — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:38 GMT

Thanks for the excellent article, George Olsen! I’m deeply involved in the confusing process of researching HCI-related graduate programs, and your piece offers great information from the grad-school trenches, the sort that I haven’t been able to find written elsewhere.

One question not addressed here was: in UE fields, is there a substantial difference between the art/design schools and the more traditionally academic/research schools, in what they teach and in how they teach it? In more traditional subjects, art schools are known for the studio approach and projects, and academic schools are more focused on readings, publishing and research. To what extend does this hold true in teaching of UE disciplines? And are there any other differences of note?

Unfortunately all CHI/UE people I’ve spoken with went to “academic” schools (forgive the oxymoron); I need to sit down with some art/design school students and grads to get their
perspective.

(I -did- read the teaching chapter from Winograd’s “Bringing Design to Software.” This thoughtful chapter suggests how HCI -should- be taught; but I also want to know the reality of how it -is- being taught now.)

Incidentally, here’s another good resource for anyone else considering grad school in this field: “Preparing for a Career in Human Factors/Ergonomics: A Resource Guide” available from the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Details: http://hfes.org/publications/CareerHFE.html

George — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:38 GMT

I understand your point, I just don’t agree with it. I think it’s possible to learn fundamentals in a way that also imparts practical skills, and that doing so is ultimately more beneficial for students when they graduate.

For example, teaching design students the fundamentals (color theory, typography, etc.) is critical, but if they can’t apply them in concrete situations—for example, designing a brochure—then to me their education has been incomplete.

Ian — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:38 GMT

When I say you “learn a little about a lot” the little should be the fundamentals of that field. Then with the skill of learn you are able to expand on the fundamentals. For example when you learn about programming at uni, you learn object oriented (OO) techniques, you may well do this in one language (say Java) but that is not the point. The point is the fundamentals of OO and how to apply them in any language. If you want to learn Java you should not go to uni is what I am saying. Sorry to use a programming example, but it was the first one in my head.

Thank you for the article and the response.

George Olsen — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:38 GMT

I agree learning to learn is an important part of higher education. But how is that incompatible with learning specific skills as well?

When I’ve hired recent college grads in the past, I didn’t expect them to be experts, but I did expect them to have basic knowledge and skills needed in the field.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for business graduates to know (in principle at least) how to run a business, design graduates to be able to design, journalism students to be able to write. So why should UX fields be different?

Ian — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:38 GMT

The biggest problem is what people thing University should be. In a traditional sense University is a place were you learn how to learn as an undergrad. If you expect to come out known how everything your wrong, you will learn a little about a lot. Then you are in a position to make one of two step, that being apply your learning skills in the so called “real” or learn how to conduct research as a post grad.

If you want to do a course were at the end you are spat out ready for the workforce do a certification or some other for of institute course.

Geoff Willcher — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:38 GMT

The difference between academic training and practical usability engineering skills is why I am seeking to offer a usability engineering certificate program. I also teach HCI at the university level on a part time basis and fully realize that there is a profound gap between academic programs and their research interests, 1-3 day workshops with essentially cookbook methods and serious job related training. My program consists of 7 six week programs intended to train working computer professionals to perform usability engineering in support of their company’s software products. The focus is on repeatedly performing procedures which are monitored and evaluated so that students build working skills and are not simply exposed to information about usability.

geoff willcher, Ph.D.
Lead Usability Engineer,
Cobalt Group
gwillche@cobaltgroup.com

Derek R — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:38 GMT

“It don’t mean nothing till you prove it all night.”

-- Richard Milhous Nixon

George Oates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:38 GMT

Hi all,
I’m studying a Master of Arts in Virtual Communication out of RMIT, in Melbourne, Australia. Even though it’s not strictly IA related, it is a great course, as there is no thesis as part of the assessment, but lots of really practical assignments, intended to focus the students on collaborative work across global teams.

Depends a LOT on the coursework i think, as to how useful studying is… I was always a hands-on learner, which is why i find this course is suiting me so well.

Sure you get to research what you are interested in, whether it’s a speciality or not, but isn’t that the point of postgrad study?

cheers,
g

sherlock_yoda — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:38 GMT

With reference to this topic, I would recommend the first Chapter of Winograd’s “Bringing Design to Software”. Winograd sets out what is required to teach Software Design students (Winograd uses the term ‘Software Design’ in the interface/interaction sense of the term).

Winograd’s main recommendation is that the discipline be taught in a similar way to design school with lots of practical projects where students can practice & hone their skills and subject their work to peer review. This could then be balanced against the accumulation of theoretical knowledge.

I would also recommend Norman’s article on this subject:
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/BCCSandProducts.html
[the part about a curriculum for applied social sciences]

Cheers,
Sherlock