Hide menu

TDDD75 Effects-Driven Development and Human-Centred Design of Interactive Systems

Assignment 3 Literature Review


The mandatory parts must be performed to receive grade 3 on the assignment, and the optional parts are performed for the possibility to receive grade 4 or 5. The first seminar is lead by Eva Ragnemalm, eva dot ragnmalm at liu dot se, while the second seminar is lead by Mathias Nordvall, mathias dot nordvall at liu dot se.

Please note that the seminar groups are not the same as the project groups.

Mandatory parts

Attendance at the seminars is mandatory. A seminar is 45 minutes.

You need to prepare for the seminars by reading and summarizing the literature, and by formulating two questions for discussion. The written summary and the two questions serve as your entrance ticket to the seminar. Make one brief summary for every piece of text for the seminar and include what the main points of the text are. Your written preparations should not be longer than a few pages in all. Bring two copies of your summary, one to hand in as you arrive and one for your own use during the seminar. If you feel uncertain about how to summarize text, there is further information at WritingforCollege.org.

The procedure for the seminars: The seminars in this course are meant to take the form of a cooperative, intellectual conversation based on open-ended questions about a text. The aim is to reach a deeper understanding of the ideas and values underpinning the course literature. The seminar leader will start the seminar with some opening questions to engage participants in the main ideas of the texts. The students then pose the questions they have brought to the seminar to each other. These questions should facilitate a collaborative analysis of the texts and develop ideas about the them. Finally, the seminar leader makes a summary and poses some closing questions, about what the participants bring with them from the texts, why the material is important, and how the ideas and values of the text can be applied in the real world.

Sometimes the seminar leader will also ask you to evaluate the seminar. A good seminar is engaging so that everyone is listening and sharing ideas, it is respectful, it contributes to a deeper understanding of the text, and it builds on evidence so that comments always refer back to the text.

Forming good questions for discussion: The questions you bring should be open-ended and clear and focus on things you would like to discuss with your peers, and they should make the other seminar participants think about ideas in the texts. Consider why you pose these questions, and prepare initial thoughts that you have on them. Good seminar questions could ask for clarifications by starting with "It puzzles me that...", "What does the author mean by ...", "I'm confused about one thing...", To me, this seems similar to...", "Do you agree that the main ideas are...", "What would an example of ... be?". Other good seminar questions explore consequences, theory and applications, like "Wouldn't another point of view be...", "What is the relation between ...", "What assumption lies behind ...", "Is there another way to look at ...", "Who benefits from ...", "What are the strengths and weaknesses of ...", "How does this affect ...", "How is this related to things we have learned earlier?"

Norms for the seminar:

  • We will sit in a square or in a circle.
  • Talk to each other, and not only the seminar leader.
  • Connect your thoughts to what previous speakers in the seminar has said.
  • Ask clarifying questions when someone says something you do not understand.
  • You will not need to raise your hand to speak.
  • Listen to each other carefully.
  • Refer to evidence from the text. Please relate to particular passages.
  • No side conversations: comments are addressed publically to the seminar.
  • Take note of how much you and others speak and invite others.
  • Do not interrupt others.
  • Disagree, but don't put others down. State your alternate interpretation or ask follow-up questions to probe or clarify.

You will not receive any further feedback on your preparations for the seminar; they are only a way of checking that you actually have processed the literature before attending the seminar. This means that no news from the seminar leader after the seminar are good news.

The seminars are mandatory, but there are a few valid reasons for missing a seminar. If you realise you cannot attend your scheduled seminar, you must notify the seminar leader in advance, informing them why you cannot attend. You must still hand in you preparations for the seminar (summary and questions). You will also be assigned two questions that other students prepared for the seminar. Write a discussion of those two questions in about 800 words and make sur to ground it in the assigned texts with references in Harvard style. The supplementary task should be delivered to your seminar leader together with the summary and your preparations. Deadlines for re-submissions apply.

Literature for Seminar 1:

  • Adzic, G. (2012). Impact Mapping: Making a Big Impact with Software Products and Projects.Woking: Provoking Thoughts Limited.
  • Hertzum, M., & Simonsen, J. (2011). Effects-driven IT development: Specifying, realizing, and assessing usage effect. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 23 (1). http://iris.cs.aau.dk/tl_files/volumes/volume23/no1/Hertzum-23-1.pdf (accessed 2015-01-02).
  • Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Section I, Section II and Section III. In Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Tool Kit for Managers. New York: Columbia University Press.

Literature for Seminar 2: If you sit at home you access all electronically available articles available through the databases (eg. ACM and Emerald) at the Linköping University Library. If you use the university computers or the university WiFi you can just click the link to the articles. Some of the articles are openly accessible.

  • Herman, J. (2004). A process for creating the business case for user experience projects. In CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '04), pp. 1413-1416. New York: ACM. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/985921.986078 (accessed 2015-01-02).
  • Leavy, B. (2010). Design Thinking - a new mental model of value innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 38 (3), 5-14. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/10878571011042050 (accessed 2015-01-02).
  • Liedtka, J., & Ogilvie, T. (2011). Section IV, Section V, and Section VI. In Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Tool Kit for Managers. New York: Columbia University Press.

Optional parts

For Grade 4: Write a critical review of the mandatory course literature that largely meets the academic standards of the grading criteria below.

For Grade 5: Write a critical review of not only the mandatory course literature, but also 2-3 papers from the optional course literature, that meets the academic standards of the grading criteria mentioned below.

For higher grades you have to go further with the summaries and questions you prepared for the seminars. You have to make use of them to write a critical review with a certain degree of analytical distinction to deserve the higher grades. The review should not exceed five pages single-spaced text (about 2500 words), not counting cover and list of references. Writing a critical review implies an analysis and evaluation of the text, and not only a summary of the texts. To write a good review you need to understand the material, and apply appropriate techniques and criteria for analysis and evaluation. A good critical review with analytical distinction is required for the highest grades. There are examples of critical reviews available at WritingforCollege.org.

Attention to detail and quality of academic writing at a certain level is expected. The following grading criteria are used:

  • Is there a cover page with assignment number, course, name and LiU ID?
  • Are the main points of the reviewed texts introduced and described?
  • Are evaluations of the argument and evidence behind the texts provided?
  • Is the relevance and implications of the texts discussed?
  • Are meaningful connections between the different texts drawn?
  • Are the conclusions in the review reasonable?
  • Are references correctly made using the Harvard style?
  • Bonus criterion: Are any original and thought provoking conclusions reached in the review? (Is not only readable but also worth reading?)

Deadline and submissions: The literature review should be submitted in PDF via email to matar63 dot liu at analys dot urkund dot se. The deadline for submission is at the end of the course.


Page responsible: Mattias Arvola
Last updated: 2017-01-12