Interaction design is playing an increasingly prominent role in computing research, while professional user experience roles expand. These forces drive the demand for more design instruction in HCI classrooms. In this paper, we distill the popular approaches to teaching design to undergraduate and graduate students of HCI. Through a review of existing research on design pedagogy, an international survey of 61 Human-computer interaction educators, and an analysis of popular textbooks, we explore the prominent disciplinary perspectives that shape design education in the Human-computer interaction classroom. We draw on our analyses to discuss the differences we see in forms of design taught, approaches to adapting design instruction in computing-based courses, and the tensions faced by instructors of these classes. We conclude by arguing for the importance of pedagogical research on design instruction as a vital and foundational area of inquiry in Interaction Design and Human-computer interaction.
Keywords HCI Education; UX Education; Design Education; Pedagogy
Interaction design is considered to be a fundamental part of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) education. However, as HCI has evolved over the decades, researchers have noted that the multidisciplinary nature of the field can cause fragmentation in approaches to design [12, 45]. We investigate what this means for design instruction: what types of design are being taught in the classroom and how are they taught given the disciplinary differences that shape HCI education?
Our scope includes HCI instructional programs in computer science departments, i-Schools, and related areas that have historically been affiliated with the ACM. We recognize, however, that HCI is also taught in programs that have historically focused on creative practices, such as Parsons’ Design and Technology program1, New York University’s Interactive Telecommunications Program 2, and others. Thus, while we are taking a broad approach to what is meant by “Design in HCI”, we are concerned in this paper with how design is taught in programs that are more frequently affiliated with the ACM.
We undertook this research to explore the elements of effective design education practice and pedagogy in HCI. Recently, researchers and educators across the globe have been organizing efforts to cultivate an HCI education community of practice and to identify vital foundations of a unified HCI curriculum [1, 7, 9, 14, 25, 48, 50, 51]. Efforts to understand best practices for design education within HCI are in the early stages [34, 54]. Three of the authors have collectively taught HCI for over 30 years and have experienced HCI courses3 at seven institutions. Having each been trained in different fields, we observed that the approach each of us takes to design education varies, likely shaped by our disciplinary biases: the art studio, computer science lab, and industrial engineering classroom.
The work we present in this paper demonstrates a high degree of variability in education practice, with disciplinary influences shaping how design is taught. This is of concern, not because variability in teaching approaches is necessarily “bad”, but because there can be a lack of acknowledgment in the HCI classroom of different approaches to teaching design, and how these approaches can support learning goals.
One particularly salient difference emerging from our analysis concerns an emphasis on the formal iterative design process (e.g., human-centered design  or contextual design ) as opposed to a creative design process  that is typical of a studio-based approach to design. The former process is driven by research-based evidence; the latter is driven by ideation, designer expertise, and craft . Each brings with it particular epistemic positions, values, and learning activities. Yet, we found no research literature on pedagogical methods for choosing among these different design processes in HCI courses. Moreover, we found no guidance on pedagogical methods to integrate design processes. This lack of guidance is problematic because formal iterative approaches and creative approaches to design are not mutually exclusive. Just as divergent design thinking can play a role in an iterative design process, user research can have its place in studio-based instruction.
In this paper, we review the existing research on HCI education as a whole and design education within HCI. We provide a review of popular textbooks used in HCI courses, along with findings from a survey of 61 HCI instructors, to characterize the distinctive design approaches commonly used in HCI education. Finally, we outline new directions for pedagogical research on design instruction as a vital and foundational area of inquiry in Interaction Design and Human-computer interaction
While the field of Human-computer interaction has grown and matured, there is a lack of research on design pedagogy in HCI. Research on education in HCI more broadly is also vital, to understanding how to design instruction is situated.
In this paper, we review the existing research on HCI education as a whole and design education within HCI. We provide a review of popular textbooks used in HCI courses, along with findings from a survey of 61 HCI instructors, to characterize the distinctive design approaches commonly used in HCI education.
We highlight a lack of awareness and integration of different approaches to design education in the typical HCI classroom. We see the need for research on HCI design education to 1) help instructors identify the value and suitability of different design approaches, and how those approaches can best be used for different learning goals, 2) develop new pedagogical approaches to teaching formal iterative design that considers balancing creative effort along with evidence-based choices and the institutional constraints of many HCI programs, and 3) leverage previous research on studio-based pedagogy and integrate these approaches into HCI programs, creating an open discourse in classrooms that respects both evidence-based choices and design choices based upon expertise.
This paper provides a framing for design scholars to understand HCI design (Interaction design)education better, along with evidence from teaching materials and HCI instructors about what the current design education practices are. We draw on these findings to identify an agenda for future research on design education as a foundational area of inquiry in Interaction Design and HCI.
The Kavian Scientific Research Association (KSRA) is a non-profit research organization to provide research / educational services in December 2013. The members of the community had formed a virtual group on the Viber social network. The core of the Kavian Scientific Association was formed with these members as founders. These individuals, led by Professor Siavosh Kaviani, decided to launch a scientific / research association with an emphasis on education.
KSRA research association, as a non-profit research firm, is committed to providing research services in the field of knowledge. The main beneficiaries of this association are public or private knowledge-based companies, students, researchers, researchers, professors, universities, and industrial and semi-industrial centers around the world.
Our main services Based on Education for all Spectrum people in the world. We want to make an integration between researches and educations. We believe education is the main right of Human beings. So our services should be concentrated on inclusive education.
The KSRA team partners with local under-served communities around the world to improve the access to and quality of knowledge based on education, amplify and augment learning programs where they exist, and create new opportunities for e-learning where traditional education systems are lacking or non-existent.
FULL Paper PDF file:Design in the HCI Classroom: Setting a Research Agenda
Betsy DiSalvo Georgia Tech Atlanta, GA, USA email@example.com
Dick Henneman Georgia Tech Atlanta, GA, USA firstname.lastname@example.org
Qiaosi Wang Georgia Tech Atlanta, GA, USA email@example.com
We thank our study participants and James McDowell (Georgia Tech) for help with the figures in this paper. This study was supported in part by NSF #1652302.
PDF reference and original file: Click here
Professor Siavosh Kaviani was born in 1961 in Tehran. He had a professorship. He holds a Ph.D. in Software Engineering from the QL University of Software Development Methodology and an honorary Ph.D. from the University of Chelsea.