Visualising academic integrity research terminology

This is a template which you can use to help get you started on the wiki submission. It is just intended as a guide and you may modify the structure to suit your project.

Contributors

• Name and what department each person was in.
• Student or staff partner?
• How was each person involved?
• What rough dates did they contribute?
• Miko Oberhauser, Department of Physics. Student. Focus on Graphic Design from October 2021.
• Man Ho Lam, Department of Physics. Student.
• Themis Halka, Department of Biomedicine. Student. Focus on Interaction design, October-December 2021.
• Alexandru-Eduard Danila, Department of Mathematics, Student. Focus on the way in which the data from the data set was displayed, October - December 2021.
• Thomas Lancaster, Department of Computing. Staff partner from October 2021.

Aims & Learning Outcomes

• Explain the motivation for your visualisation.

• Introduce the subject of your visualisation.
• Which module and year is it intended for and which setting (lecture or self study)?
• List learning outcomes. E.g.: "After using this visualisation, students should be able to explain that..."

The visualisation will be used as a supporting activity in the Academic Integrity in STEMM I-Explore module. The aim will be to provide an interactive visualisation that shows the type of terminology used in academic integrity research paper titles and shows how this has developed over time. Some examples of the type of data available are given in the 2021 paper “Academic Dishonesty or Academic Integrity? Using Natural Language Processing (NLP) Techniques to Investigate Positive Integrity in Academic Integrity Research” (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09422-4). An extension would allow the visualisation to work with a dynamic data set and to introduce information from paper abstracts as well as paper titles.

Intending learning outcomes:

After using this visualisation, students will be able to:

• Discuss the range of research that has been conducted under the academic integrity banner and identify topics of timely and personal interest to them.
• Explore the range of terminology used in academic integrity research and to interpret how the choice of paper titles influences how often papers are cited and the future reach of research
• Contrast the use of positive, neutral and negative language in discussing academic integrity and to show how the messaging used within the field has developed over time

Design Overview

• What the final outcome was, how it looks, how it functions etc.
• Include graphics.
• Do not include justification or design progression, leave this for later sections.

Design Justification

Assessment Criteria

• List your cohort's assessment criteria. You may want to number the assessment criteria so you can refer to them easily later.
• Education Design:
• 1. Target audience and their prior knowledge is clearly identified. This information is applied to decide what the learning outcomes should be.
• 2. Key concepts identified and broken down into several discrete and easily achievable points.
• Graphical Design:
• 3. The design is such that the visualisation is clear and easily understood; the layout isn't cluttered.
• 4. The choice of font, as well as size and placement of text in the visualisation design, makes the information easy to comprehend.
• 5. The colour palette is appropriate and well justified, making it easy to see all text/design elements.
• Interaction Design:
• 6. The learner should know intuitively what the objectives are of the visualisation.
• 7. The user should be able to intuitively understand the function of each interactive element in the visualisation.
• 8. There should be immediate visual feedback when a learner interacts with the visualisation.
• General:
• 9. The wiki page should give a clear overview of the project, and someone not familiar with the project should be able to understand it - no prior understanding necessary.
• 10. The design choices should be well justified in the Wiki project page.
• 11. Fulfillment of staff partner's brief.

Education Design

• What Methods were considered to convey concepts?
• Design progression, key choices with justifications.
• How has feedback been incorporated.

Graphical Design

• How were accessibility issues considered?
• How was space used effectively?
• Design progression, key choices with justifications.
• How has feedback been incorporated.

• How is the design intuitive?

Interaction Design

• Choice of interactive element(s) that fit in organically with the visualisation [inspiration of choice might be from lecture/in-class activity or other sources] - Sliders/Buttons/Cursor (hover/click):
• Question marks pop ups: can click on question marks on the home page: pop up with text explaining general function of interaction + different options. Justification: clear help function, intuitive. User can choose to click on it: if knows how to use the visualisation, no impact on the design, page not full of text.
• Search bars and enter button: for learner's input of keywords/filters. Explicit function, similar to google
• Buttons for navigation within platform: return to home page... function indicated on button
• Links enabling user to click on words to have more info: intuitive.
• Keeping accessibility of interactive elements in mind during design phase.
• Design progression, key choices with justifications.
• How has feedback been incorporated.

Progress and Future Work

• Is the design finalised?
• Which pages have been uploaded to website?
• Any ideas for future improvements.

Links

• Link to GitHub repository for code in development:
• Link to visualisation on ImpVis website (when uploaded):
• Link to Collection on ImpVis website (when created):
• Any other links to resources (Miro boards / notes pages / Google Docs etc):