Revision Strategy
I offer what follows in order to help and guide you, and have compiled it with that intention. But please bear in mind that it is in no way meant to cover every eventuality, nor be in any sense a legal or pseudo-legal commitment, and I reserve the right to act in ways not described below. Therefore I will not entertain complaints about this material (but I will entertain suggestions). Use it at your own risk.
I'm sorry that I must give such a disclaimer, but feel I must do so because sometimes a minority of students complain when they feel they have been misled by the guidance I give. When I receive such complaints, it makes me feel I do not want to help anyone, and do nothing more than is strictly necessary. But, in fact, I want to do more, and to help and guide you. Hence this page.
My examinations are usually composed of four questions, of which you must answer two. In setting them, my aim is not to trick you, but to allow and encourage you to express your genuine understanding of the issues we have covered. In marking them, I look for understanding rather than detailed knowledge or ability to repeat content of the module.
My usual marking strategy is as follows. I look for the following things in your answers:
- Sound understanding of the material, especially the principles.
- A 'sparkle' in the understanding that makes it more than sound; for example,
- Showing you can employ your sound understanding in creative ways, and succinctly discuss issues that were not covered in the module
- Evidence of wider reading round the topic, that is relevantly included in your answer
- Correct and full rendering of relevant detail, without waffle
- The ability to know what is relevant, and omit what is not relevant to the question. This means that just dumping down module content will lose you marks, because some of it will be irrelevant - showing you do not really understand.
- Writing it in a concise, clear manner; expressing it well.
Approximately, my marking strategy is as follows: For a first class mark, you need to supply all these. If you supply all except the 'sparkle', then you may get upper second. If you fail to demonstrate sound understanding, your mark may be lower second. If you not only do this but also get a lot of the required detail wrong or you leave it out, then expect a third.
To achieve this, I sometimes adopt a three-part question:
- Part (a) asks you for module detail. Example: "Explain the levels of description", "Explain model, view, controller", "Explain the difference between proximal and distal user interfaces" This leads you into the question.
- Part (b) asks for something deeper, and sometimes involves the word 'discuss' or the word 'why', but sometimes is only asking for deeper detail and how things relate to each other. It is still, usually, about what was covered in the module. Example: "Discuss why proximal user interface leads to improved ease of use".
- Part (c) usually requires you to go beyond what was covered in the module, using the understanding developed in, or related to, parts (a), (b). For example, if could require you to apply the understanding you have expressed in parts (a), (b) to a practical situation. Or it could ask you to discuss some topic, using the understanding.
See also Exam Strategy.
In most cases, each question is centred on a major section of the module. For example, in the Human Factors module, we have the following main sectinos:
- Levels, and other introductory ideas
- The Human User
- Multi-level issues in user interface: MVC, Norman's gulfs, etc.
- UI at the bit level, symbol level, knowledge level
- Novice and Expert User; Proximal UI
- Usage and usefulness (Roles-Tasks-Features, Dooyeweerd's aspects)
Six major issues for four questions. Often, Novice and Expert User, Proximal UI is combined into multi-level issues rather than being a separate issue. Sometimes multi-level issues are combined with levels of UI. Often there is not a separate question on Levels, but they occur in, or as part of, most of the other questions. Therefore, usually you can be sure there will be questions on Usage-Usefulness, Human User, and UI.
Formally, I give no guarantee of this, but I do not think that, in ten years of running the module, I have even done things differently. My aim is not to trick you, but to allow and encourage you to express your genuine understanding of the issues we have covered.
Therefore, formally, you should revise the whole of the module. But, if you wish to take the risk, you can elect to revise only part of it. If so, I suggest you revise three quarters of it. Sometimes the following approach can be useful:
- Everyone should know levels. If you obtained low mark in the assignment it means you have some confusion there, and so you should read the whole levels chapter in the notes. Even if you obtained a high mark, at least scan the chapter.
- Then revise first that part of the module that you found most interesting. Read the whole of that chapter in the notes.
- Then read (revise) the two other chapters that relate to it.
- (Doing this should give you the ability to answer two questions of the four. But, in case the questions on those issues just happen to be impossible for you, you should also ...)
- Then read a chapter that is very different from that which interests you. This gives you at least some ability to answer a question that did not interest you, in emergencies.
- Finally, if you have time, read the rest. But if you do not have time, scan the rest to remind yourself of what was covered.
By doing this, you are making use of the semantic links in your mind, so they work for you. It can make the process of revision easier.
Note that most chapters of the notes contain material that was not covered in the lectures. This is partly so as to give a different slant on the topics covered so that, if you found the lectures difficult, you can at least get to know the topic. (This is one reason I do not supply copies of the lecture slides; the notes give you an alternative way in.)
Copyright (c) Andrew Basden 2003.
Last updated: 15 January 2003