CHI 97 Electronic Publications: Panels
None of the above: What's really essential in HCI education?
Moderators:
Andrew Sears
School of Computer Science
DePaul University
243 South Wabash Avenue
Chicago, IL 60604 USA
+1 312-362-8063
sears@cs.depaul.edu
Marian G. Williams
Computer Science Department
University of Massachusetts Lowell
One University Avenue
Lowell, MA 01854 USA
+1 508-934-3628
williams@cs.uml.edu
Panelists:
Jean B. Gasen
Virginia Commonwealth University
jgasen@atlas.vcu.edu
Tom Hewett
Drexel University
hewett@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu
John Karat
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
jkarat@watson.ibm.com
Gail McLaughlin
Electronic Data Systems
plsed011.gmclau01@eds.com
Abstract
As we look to the future of HCI education, it is clear that,
despite major HCI curriculum initiatives [1, 2], there is
little consensus in the CHI community about what the content
of HCI education should include or about how and by whom that
content should be delivered. This panel gives voice to both
prevailing and minority opinions on the subject.
Keywords
HCI Education, industry, academia.
© 1997 Copyright on this material is held by the authors.
Introduction
The panelists share the common goal of figuring out how to
produce superbly trained HCI professionals, but have differing
views on what this means. The questions of what HCI professionals
need to learn and who should be teaching it are still unclear.
While their goals are the same, these panelists would provide
different answers to these questions. The following is a
summary of the views represented by the panel:
- HCI is changing too fast to teach specific content.
We need to teach people generic skills that will help them
adapt to a world where change is the norm.
- Academia shouldn't be teaching specific workplace skills.
Universities provide education, not training.
- Academia isn't preparing graduates to be useful in the
workplace, because it isn't giving them useful skills.
- HCI is a state of mind, not a body of knowledge or a
set of skills. Formal academic studies are a good thing,
but you can learn the HCI state of mind without them.
Panelist Position Statements
Jean Gasen
The debate over whether it's more important to learn about
the HCI "whats" versus the HCI "hows" misses the point.
The field is changing too rapidly to attempt to focus on
specific HCI knowledge and skills. Instead, we should be
focusing on the development of more generic skills and abilities
such as nurturing a commitment to learning, developing
problem-solving and critical thinking skills, engaging in
effective teamwork, maintaining a sense of professionalism,
and developing abilities to handle stress and deadlines.
These skills are much more difficult to teach, but the
payoffs are far greater. Because they are more generic, the
skills transcend particular domains of knowledge. Some, such
as the commitment to learning, are more attitudinal, while
others, such as stress management, can be more easily
translated into behavioral strategies. Student centered
approaches to education tend to emphasis the student's
responsibilities for what they learn. Such self-directedness
is compatible with a commitment to lifelong learning.
Experiences in which students must help define the problem
and work with others in finding solutions also tend to build
these types of skills. Finally, giving students opportunities
to evaluate and critique one another's efforts nurtures
critical thinking skills and the ability to provide
constructive criticism - both of which are essential to
effectively working in any field. Generic skills, such as
these, will be more important for the long haul because they
will give students the ability to adapt to a world in which
change and global cooperation and collaboration will be the norm.
Tom Hewett
In addressing the issue of whether or not there is something
wrong with education in HCI, it is important to clarify the goals
of HCI education; to distinguish between education and training;
and to remain cognizant of the differing goals of education
and training. Whatever failings currently exist in HCI education
stem from not recognizing that HCI is an applied discipline in
which education and research should be focused on answering
questions which ultimately have practical relevance.
However, despite occasional complaints to the contrary, there
is really very little wrong with HCI education. Rather, the
problem lies in the expectations of those who want universities
to provide them with a supply of well-trained workers when the
role of universities is to develop well-educated citizens.
Since most of those who want universities to provide them
with well-trained workers are typically not those who pay
universities' bills (and are typically not even willing to
pay for the added costs of any training which might be offered
at universities), universities will probably continue to
serve the goals of education rather than training.
John Karat
It has been my experience that the educational background
preferred by most companies seeking usability specialists is
often in behavioral science fields (e.g., psychology) that
only indirectly train students in skills relevant to the
design and development of usable software systems. My
experience has been that training software professionals
to be sensitive to users and to carry out activities that
result in the development of usable software systems involves
little that can or should be connected to most current
behavioral science training programs. Unfortunately, neither
do any other formal educational programs (e.g., computer
science) meet the practical needs of the software industry
for usability engineers.
The most important extension to current training of usability
engineers for industry is to provide an emphasis on giving
students realistic experience in designing interfaces. As
suggested by Strong et al. [2], students need to gain skill
and realistic experience in:
- the entire task and work environment in which systems will be used
- constraints and tradeoffs such as limits on resources, and social
and organizational pressures
- work flow, task, and organizational analysis and design
- involving users in design
- teamwork
- reflecting on their practice of usability engineering
Most importantly, these areas should be covered in realistic
contexts, by having students participate in several design
projects from small to large scale, consult across several
projects at once, and experience real software product development,
for example through university-industry partnerships.
Gail McLaughlin
I firmly believe, as an HCI educator and corporate evangelist,
that the making of a good HCI specialist is possessing the
right "mindset."
Over the years, computer systems have become faster, more
complex, and more pervasive. But users didn't change much,
except that their frustration level with computers seemed to
grow as the complexity of computers grew. I suggest that the
reason the developments and advances in technology are not
improving users' lives is the missing HCI mindset. The HCI
mindset is always looking for a way to make things work together
better. It looks beyond the problem at hand to all the
contributing factors. It examines past failures to create
future success. It communicates, shares, is empathetic, cares.
Where does the HCI mindset come from?
I believe that the HCI mindset is present in everyone, in widely
varying degrees, but that it must be nurtured and encouraged.
Is the HCI mindset nurtured and encouraged in our universities?
In our corporate environments? The answer is marginally. In
universities we teach the elements. We poke and prod and encourage
critical thinking and individual expression. In the corporations
we expect the results of the mindset without contributing to its
growth. By focusing on the individual in the universities and the
results in the corporation, we lose sight of the greater whole.
What can we do to nurture and encourage the HCI mindset? First, I
believe that we must continually examine who we are, what we
know, and what we do fit into and enhance the whole. We must
challenge students, employees, and ourselves to understand the big
picture as well as the tiny details. We need to stress teamwork,
cultivate synergy, and reward the sharing of ideas. If we are
more successful in cultivating the HCI mindset, I believe we can
raise the level of standards for excellence and carefully craft
systems that work with each other seamlessly, reliably, and truly
meet the needs of the user.
References
- Hewett, T., Baecker, R., Card, S., Carey, T., Gasen, J.,
Mantei, M., Perlman, G., Strong, G. and Verplank, W., ACM SIGCHI
Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction, New York: ACM, 1992.
- Strong, G. with contributions by Gasen, J.B., Hewett, T.,
Hix, D., Morris, J., Muller, M., Novick, D. et al., "New Directions
in Human-Computer Interaction Education, Research and Practice,"
Washington, DC: Sponsored by the National Science Foundation and
the Advanced Research Projects Agency, 1994.
CHI 97 Electronic Publications: Panels
