Assignments
AI 380: Human-AI Interaction · Fall 2026
All assignments are submitted via Canvas unless otherwise noted. Deadlines are at 11:59 PM on the listed date unless specified as “before class.” Review the Late Submission Policy before requesting extensions.
Assignment Overview
| # | Assignment | Type | Weight | Due Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HW0 | Personal Introduction & Expectations | Individual | Participation | Aug 28 |
| HW1 | Critical Literature Synthesis & Interface Critique | Individual | 7% | Sep 5 |
| HW2 | Applied Needfinding & Low-Fidelity Prototype | Individual | 7% | Sep 18 |
| HW3 | Description TBA by Instructor | Individual | 6% | Nov 13 |
| Midterm Quiz | In-class quiz (Week 7) | Individual | 10% | Oct 7 |
| GP0 | Team Formation, Charter & Project Journal Setup | Group | Mandatory | Sep 25 |
| GP1 | Co-Designing & Authoring VR Interventions for Older Adults | Group | 10% | Oct 2 |
| GP2 | User Needfinding, Personas & Paper Conversational Workflow | Group | 10% | Oct 16 |
| GP3 | System Implementation, Integration & Containerization | Group | 10% | Nov 20 |
| GP4 | Public Deployment, Usability Testing & Final Documentation | Group | 10% | Dec 3 |
| RE | Final Course Reflection Essay | Individual | 10% | Dec 5 |
Individual Homework Assignments
HW0 — Personal Introduction & Expectations
Due: Thursday, Aug 28 · Canvas Discussion Board · Participation
Objective
Introduce yourself to your peers and articulate your goals, prior background, and expectations for this course.
Instructions
Post a brief response on the Canvas Discussion Board covering:
- Basic Introduction — Name, major/academic year, and a brief note on your prior experience with Computer Science, Data/AI, or Design.
- Course Expectations — What specific topic or skill in Human-AI Interaction are you most excited to learn (e.g., conversational design, user research, rapid prototyping, ethical AI)?
- Real-World AI Systems — Name one interactive AI system or tool you use regularly (e.g., ChatGPT, code completion tools, recommendation systems). What is one thing it does exceptionally well from a user perspective, and one failure mode or design flaw you have noticed?
Submission
Post directly to the Canvas Discussion Board by Aug 28. Reply to at least one classmate’s post.
HW1 — Critical Literature Synthesis & Interface Critique
Due: Friday, Sep 5 (11:59 PM) · 3%
Description
Write a 300-word position paper analyzing an AI tool through the lens of the Week 1–2 readings.
Tasks
- Select an intelligent everyday application (e.g., ChatGPT, email smart reply, or a recommendation engine).
- Critique the application using the tension between Direct Manipulation vs. Interface Agents (Shneiderman & Maes, 1997) and Power to the People (Amershi et al., 2014).
- Evaluate how effectively the tool supports human agency versus over-automating decisions.
- Propose two concrete UX redesigns to resolve the identified issues.
Submission
Submit a PDF to Canvas. Include screenshots to support your critique.
Grading Rubric
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Clear identification of the AI system and its role | 10 |
| Accurate application of Direct Manipulation vs. Agents debate | 20 |
| Accurate application of “Power to the People” framework | 20 |
| Quality of two redesign proposals (specific and justified) | 30 |
| Writing clarity and organization | 10 |
| Adherence to 300-word scope | 10 |
| Total | 100 points |
HW2 — Applied Needfinding & Low-Fidelity Prototype
Due: Thursday, Sep 18 (11:59 PM) · 3%
Description
Produce a 2–3 page project discovery report and an initial paper prototype for an individual design concept.
Tasks
Observation & Persona — Conduct a brief participant observation session (15–20 min) of a user interacting with an existing intelligent application. Construct 1–2 user personas based on observed pain points, referencing Klemmer’s observation video (Week 3) and Visme’s persona-creation method.
Problem Critique — Identify user-reported issues (loss of control, unpredictability, or lack of transparency) inspired by When People and Algorithms Meet (Eslami et al., IUI 2019).
Ideation & Prototyping — Use a brainstorming technique (Chainstorm or Tweetstorm from Week 4 readings) to design an alternative interface. Create a low-fidelity paper prototype demonstrating a mixed-initiative approach balancing agent automation with user control.
Deliverables
- 2–3 page written report (personas, problem statement, design rationale)
- Photographs or scans of paper prototype (minimum 3 distinct screens/states)
Grading Rubric
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Observation quality and persona grounding in evidence | 20 |
| Problem critique linked to Eslami et al. (IUI 2019) | 20 |
| Prototype coverage and annotation | 25 |
| Design rationale connecting research to choices | 25 |
| Writing quality | 10 |
| Total | 100 points |
HW3 — Assignment Description TBA
Due: Thursday, Nov 13 (11:59 PM) · 6%
The full description for HW3 will be provided by the instructor before Week 12. Check Canvas and Discord for the announcement. The assignment is due Nov 13 and carries 6% of your final grade.
Group Project Milestones
All group milestones are submitted via Canvas. See the Project page for the full description of both projects.
Contribution Statements are required for GP1–GP4. Each submission must include a team-level contribution breakdown AND a private individual contribution statement from each member. See Contribution Statement Requirements.
GP0 — Team Formation, Charter & Project Journal Setup
Due: Thursday, Sep 25 · 5%
Submission: Group Website URL + Signed Team Charter PDF on Canvas
Objective
Establish your project group, align team expectations, sign a formal working agreement, and launch your public-facing team journal website.
Part 1 — Team Working Agreement (Charter)
Schedule a team meeting and draft a brief agreement covering:
- Roles & Responsibilities — Communication lead, technical/prototyping lead, project manager
- Communication & Meetings — Preferred channels and weekly meeting times
- Conflict & Accountability — Expectations for deadlines and equitable work division
- Sign-off — All members print, sign, and upload a digital copy
Part 2 — Project Journal Website
Set up a team website (Google Sites, GitHub Pages, or Notion) to document your project throughout the term.
Required pages:
| Page | Content |
|---|---|
| Home | Team/project name, tagline, member photos and bios |
| Process / Journal | Weekly progress updates, user research, and prototypes |
| Deliverables | Section for all major milestone hand-ins |
Ensure the course instructor and TAs have view access before submitting.
Grading
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Website live and fully accessible to instructor | 20 |
| All required sections present and navigable | 20 |
| Team Charter complete, signed, and specific | 30 |
| Team bios and project vision articulated clearly | 15 |
| Accessibility and visual quality of the site | 15 |
| Total | 100 points |
GP2 — User Needfinding, Problem Definition, Personas & Paper Workflow
Due: Friday, Oct 16 · 15%
Submission: Group Website Post + Canvas PDF
Focus
Begin Project 2: Conversational AI Assistants for Older Adults. Understand target user needs, deepen problem definition, build user models, and map conversational workflows.
Deliverables
- Needfinding Summary — Documentation of direct interactions or interviews with at least 2 older adults, highlighting key pain points and accessibility requirements.
- Problem Statement & Scoping — A clear statement defining the specific cognitive, mobility, or social challenge your system will address.
- User Personas — 2 detailed personas of older adult end-users (technical familiarity, visual/auditory needs, cognitive considerations).
- Paper-Based Conversational Workflow — A paper dialogue flowchart mapping multi-turn paths, system intents, fallback strategies, and human-in-the-loop interventions.
- Project Website Update — All GP2 artifacts published to your team site.
Grading
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Needfinding depth and participant evidence | 25 |
| Problem statement specificity and scoping | 20 |
| Persona quality (grounded, detailed, realistic) | 20 |
| Dialogue flowchart coverage and logic | 25 |
| Website presentation | 10 |
| Total | 100 points |
GP3 — System Implementation, Integration & Containerization
Due: Thursday, Nov 20 · 15%
Submission: GitHub Repository Link + Group Website Update
Focus
Full functional development of the conversational AI assistant for older adults.
Deliverables
- Core Agent Implementation — Functional conversational agent built with Rasa CALM (or equivalent) configured for multi-turn dialogue management.
- Web/Mobile Interface — Accessible user-facing interface (high-contrast UI, speech-to-text support, large touch targets).
- Containerized Deployment — Complete Docker setup (
Dockerfile+docker-compose) that builds and runs the full stack from a single command. - Technical README — Setup instructions and access credentials so the instructor can verify locally.
- Website Update — Architecture diagram, screenshots, and setup overview published on team site.
Grading
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Agent functionality (multi-turn dialogue, intent handling) | 30 |
| Interface accessibility and usability | 25 |
| Containerization (builds and runs from README) | 25 |
| Technical documentation quality | 15 |
| Website update | 5 |
| Total | 100 points |
GP4 — Public Deployment, Usability Testing & Final Documentation
Due: Wednesday, Dec 3 · 15%
Submission: Canvas + Team Website (final update)
Focus
End-to-end public deployment, field evaluation with older adults, and scholarly presentation.
Deliverables
- Public Live Deployment — Hosted, publicly accessible URL where the assistant can be evaluated live.
- Usability Testing Report — Evaluation with at least 3 older adult participants:
- Task completion rates
- Usability friction points
- Error recovery observations
- Qualitative feedback themes
- Poster & Technical Documentation — Academic poster + comprehensive technical report (system architecture, design decisions, findings).
- Presentation Deck — 12-min presentation + 5-min Q&A covering the full project journey: needfinding → design → build → evaluate.
Grading
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Live deployment stability and accessibility | 20 |
| Usability testing rigor and participant evidence | 30 |
| Technical documentation completeness | 20 |
| Presentation quality and demo effectiveness | 20 |
| Q&A engagement | 10 |
| Total | 100 points |
Final Reflection Essay
Due: Saturday, Dec 5 · 10%
Description
Write an individual reflection essay (800–1,200 words). This is a reflective synthesis — not a summary of the course.
Address all four prompts:
- Most important insight — What is the most important thing you learned about designing AI systems for human use? Give a concrete example from your project or the course.
- Changed thinking — How did your perspective on AI and society shift over the semester? What challenged your assumptions?
- Ethical dimension — Choose one ethical issue in AI design (fairness, transparency, privacy, manipulation, access) and describe how you would address it as a designer.
- Looking forward — What aspect of Human-AI Interaction do you most want to explore further? What question do you wish this course had answered?
Submission
Submit individually via Canvas. Do not share with teammates before submitting.
Grading
| Criterion | Points |
|---|---|
| Depth and specificity of reflection | 30 |
| Connection to course concepts and readings | 25 |
| Evidence of changed or nuanced thinking | 20 |
| Writing quality (clarity, voice, flow) | 15 |
| Forward-looking insight | 10 |
| Total | 100 points |
Strong essays make specific references to readings, in-class activities, or project experiences — not just generic statements about AI. Show your thinking process, not just your conclusions.
Contribution Statement Requirements
Mandatory for GP1 through GP4.
Team Contribution Statement (included in the group submission)
A brief breakdown in the project documentation outlining specific work items completed by each team member for that milestone.
Individual Contribution Statement (private Canvas submission)
Each student submits a private reflection form covering:
- Personal Contributions — Bulleted list of tasks you personally owned and completed
- Effort Allocation — Estimated percentage of work contributed by each member
(e.g., Member A: 35%, Member B: 35%, Member C: 30%) - Team Dynamics — Short statement on collaboration quality, responsiveness, and equity of work distribution
If there is a significant discrepancy between team members’ reported contributions, or between reported and observed contributions, the instructor may assign individual grades that differ from the group grade.