DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY
GOKONGWEI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
Course Title
Course Code
Pre-requisite
Pre-requisite to
Credit Unit
Faculty
Term/Time/Room
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Cognitive Ergonomics Laboratory
LBYIE3C
COGERG2 (Co)/ LBYIE2C (S)
IEPRODE (Soft)
1 unit (3 hours laboratory)
Course Description:
This is a one-term, three hour per week laboratory class for application of tools and techniques in
Cognitive Ergonomics.
Program Educational Objectives
PEO 1 (Leadership)
Graduates will assume lead roles in the practice of Industrial and Systems Engineering and its allied
disciplines in manufacturing, services, and government.
PEO 2 (Life-long Learning)
Graduates will continue to engage in life-long learning, understanding and applying knowledge and
ideas in Industrial and Systems Engineering and allied disciplines.
PEO 3 (Social Responsibility)
Graduates will be informed and involved members of IE professional society/ies or other professional
organizations as well as in community-based organizations.
Learning Outcomes and Graduate Attributes:
Upon the completion of the course, the student is expected to be able to do the following:
EXPECTED LASALLIAN
STUDENT OUTCOMES
LEARNING OUTCOMES
GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES
(SO)
(LO)
(ELGA)
As a critical and creative B. An ability to design and 1. Deduce the relationship of
thinker
conduct experiments as well as
sensitivity and bias in a
to analyze and interpret data
signal
detection
experiment and explain its
causes.
2. Conclude the causes of
vigilance decrement for a
task over time.
1
3. Illustrate an experiment to
deduce information theory.
4. Contrast the different
stimulus to deduce how
memory works
5. Illustrate
usability
problems experienced in a
website,
make
recommendations
that
correlates with usability
standards
6. Prepare and present an oral
presentation and answers
questions
about
the
experiment reports
As an effective communicator
Final Course Output:
LEARNING
OUTCOME (LO)
1
2
3
4
5
REQUIRED OUTPUT
DUE DATE
Experiment report on Signal Detection Theory (COGLAB)
Experiment report on Vigilance (COGLAB)
Experiment report on Information Theory
Experiment report om Memory (COGLAB)
Usability testing report (CAMTASIA)
Week 3
Week 5
Week 7
Week 9
Week 12
Course Assessment Matrix:
Student Outcomes
Learning Outcomes
A
LO3
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
2,3
Legend: 1 = Introductory
2=Enabling
3=Demonstrative
Performance Indicators (only for Experiment on Information Theory)
B1.
B2.
B3.
B4.
Design the experimental plan
Collect sufficient and appropriate data to achieve the objectives of the experiment.
Analyze data using appropriate methods.
Draw out relevant and appropriate conclusions in accordance to engineering principles
Performance Indicator
B1. Design the experimental plan
Assessment
Experiment on
Information Theory
2
B2. Collect sufficient and appropriate data to
achieve the objectives of the experiment.
Experiment on
Information Theory
B3.
Experiment on
Information Theory
Experiment on
Information Theory
Analyze data using appropriate methods.
B4. Draw out relevant and appropriate
conclusions in accordance to engineering principles
Grading System:
1. Grades will be given differently for reporting group and non-reporting groups. The table below
summarizes the grading scheme.
Reporting
Non-reporting
Group
group
Written report
50% Written report
100%
Presentation
50%
2. All non-reporting groups should ask questions during the critique sessions since it is given a weight
of 10% of the total grade.
3. At the end of each experiment, each member will evaluate other members of the team using the
form below.
1
2
3
4
5
Criteria
Not at
Not
Very
all
really
Undecided
Somewhat
much
1. Engages with the work of the team
2. Respects the opinions/input of others into decision
making
3. Willing to take on a role; completes responsibilities
on time
4. Actively attempts to ensure the inclusion of members
in project
5. Acts assertively and avoids passivity
6. Participates in literature search
7. Participates in writing the report
8. Checks and edits reports prepared by the team
TOTAL
The average total mark obtained from the form will be used to determine the additional points
obtained from the team performance component using the table below.
Average Score
Points
Average Score
Points
0-5
1
21-25
9
6-10
3
26-30
11
3
11-15
5
31-35
13
16-20
7
36-40
15
4. Final raw score is computed by using the following formula:
Final raw score = average experiment grade (75%) + critique (10%) + team performance grade
(15%)
5. Passing score is 60 points.
Class Policies:
1. The maximum length of the report is 10 pages excluding Appendices. Spacing should be 1.5 in
Times New Roman font 12.
2. All groups should submit the experiment report in the submission link 24 hours before the
presentation schedule.
3. Late submissions of the report will be accepted up to 1 week after the deadline but with a
corresponding penalty. A 10% penalty will be given.
4. For each experiment, there will be an assigned group to present their experiment to the class
through video conferencing.
5. The video camera of the reporting group must be turned on during the presentation.
6. All members of the reporting group should be in business attire. Those that do not comply with this
requirement will not be allowed to present and will be given a grade of zero for the presentation
part.
7. All members of the reporting group should be given a chance to present in class. Duration of the
report should not exceed 20 minutes. Each person should be given at least 4 minutes to present.
8. A person who was not able to report during his/her allotted time will be given a grade of zero for
the presentation part.
9. The reporting group should post a copy of their experiment report to the corresponding discussion
board 24 hours before the presentation schedule so other groups can review it and prepare questions
for the critique session.
10. Critique sessions will be done after the presentation of the reporting group. For each experiment,
there will be a critiquing group that will be given priority in asking questions to the reporting group.
After the critiquing group has asked all their questions, other groups in the class will be given the
chance to ask questions. A maximum of 3 questions per person.
11. All questions in the critique session will be graded by the instructor based on quality and relevance.
12. Questions are graded individually, not by group.
13. Students must turn on the video camera when asking questions.
14. All questions should be posted on the critique discussion board for it to be graded.
15. Similarity Index above 20% will be zero as well for the report
4
This score sheet will only be used for Experiments 1 to 4.
Objectives
(5 pts)
Methodology/
Experimental
procedure
(10 pts) – B1
Data collection
(10 pts) – B2
Results
(20 pts) – B3
1
Beginning or incomplete
Objectives are not
appropriate for the
experiment.
0-1
Not written in paragraph
format. Did not discuss
procedure of experiment.
0-2
Data gathered were not
appropriate for the
experiment.
2
Developing
The objectives are correct
but incomplete.
0-2
Data are incomplete.
3-5
Data presented are
complete but not organized
properly. Figures, graphs,
tables poorly constructed.
1
Results gathered were not
described or highlighted.
Statistical analysis was not
appropriate
2
Results gathered were not
described or highlighted.
Statistical analysis done
was appropriate but
incomplete.
5-9
Some results were correctly
interpreted and related to
the objectives. Related
studies were not cited.
1-4
Results obtained were not
explained in relation to the
objectives. Related studies
were not cited.
Discussion
(20 pts)
Recommendations
on the concept
(15 pts)
1-5
Recommendations are not
related to the analysis or do
not solve the problem.
Conclusions
(10 pts) – B4
0-3
Conclusions missing or
missing the important points
Spelling, grammar,
sentence structure
(5 pts)
0-2
Frequent grammar and/or
spelling errors, writing style
is rough and immature
Bibliography
(5 pts)
0-1
Only one relevant journal is
cited. APA format style
were not correctly followed
and written in the
bibliography.
0-1
2-3
Written in paragraph
format. Incomplete
discussion of procedure.
3-5
Data were poorly gathered
inappropriate but complete.
Raw data not presented.
6-10
Recommendations do not
completely solve the
problem and not well
documented.
4-8
Conclusions are not related
to the objectives of the
experiment.
3-6
Occasional
grammar/spelling errors,
generally readable with
some rough spots in writing
style
2-3
Three relevant journals are
cited. APA format style
were correctly followed and
written in the bibliography.
2-3
3
Satisfactory
Objectives are complete
but not appropriately
stated.
4
Written in paragraph
format. Almost complete
discussion of procedure.
6-8
Data were gathered
correctly, appropriate but
not complete.
Raw data presented in
appendix.
6-8
Data presented are
complete and organized
properly. Figures,
graphs, tables are not
constructed well.
3-4
Results gathered were
described properly but
not complete. Statistical
analysis done is
appropriate.
10-14
Almost all of the results
have been correctly
interpreted and discussed
in relation to objectives.
Related studies were
cited.
11-15
Recommendations solve
the problem, welldocumented but not
feasible.
9-12
Conclusions related to
objectives with cognitive
ergonomic principles but
improperly stated.
7-8
Less than 3
grammar/spelling errors,
mature, readable style
4
Four relevant journals
are cited. APA format
style were correctly
followed and written in
the bibliography.
4
4
Exemplary
Objectives are complete and
well-written
Score
5
Well-written in paragraph
format, all experimental details
are covered.
9-10
Data gathered were complete,
appropriate and properly
gathered. Raw data presented in
the appendix.
9-10
Data presented are complete
and organized properly. All
figures, graphs, tables are
correctly drawn, numbered and
contain titles/captions.
5
Results gathered were
described properly and
completely. Statistical analysis
done is appropriate.
15
All-important trends and data
comparisons have been
interpreted correctly and
discussed, good understanding
of results is conveyed. Related
studies were cited
16-20
Recommendations can solve
the problem, feasible and welldocumented.
13-15
It is relevant and appropriate in
accordance to the objectives,
highlighting cognitive
ergonomics principles.
9-10
All grammar/spelling correct
and very well-written
5
Five or more relevant journals
are cited. APA format style
were correctly followed and
written in the bibliography.
5
Rubric for Grading Presentations: (Attach one copy per reporting person)
CRITERIA
Presentation
Materials
EXEMPLARY
All slides in the
presentation are relevant
SATISFACTORY
Some slides are not
relevant to the
DEVELOPING
Slides are more than
expected and most of
BEGINNING
Presentation contained
little to no valuable
5
Slides, pictures, graphics
and their placement were
creative. Slides contained
no spelling or grammatical
errors. Letters and fonts
were easily viewed and
read by the entire audience.
Speech
Delivery and
Organization
13-15
Student is very confident
and did an excellent job of
engaging the class in the
report.
Preparation is very evident
on the way the student
delivers the report.
Student maintains eye
contact with audience and
seldom reads the slides
Student has a clear and
modulated voice and
correct, precise
pronunciation of terms.
Student knows his part in
the sequence of report.
Ability to
Answer
Questions
9-10
Student demonstrates full
knowledge (more than
required) by answering all
class questions
comprehensibly with
explanations and
elaboration that indicates
understanding of the
question.
20-25
presentation and
lengthened duration
of the report.
Slides, pictures,
graphics and their
placement were
appropriate. Slides
contained no
spelling or
grammatical errors.
Letters and fonts
were easily viewed
by the most
audience.
9-12
Student is
occasionally
confident with the
presentation
however the
presentation was
not engaging as it
could have been for
the class.
Student maintains
eye contact most of
the time but
frequently reads the
slides.
Student's voice is
clear. Student
pronounces most
words correctly.
Most audience
members can hear
presentation.
7-8
Student is at ease
with expected
answers to all
questions, but fails
to elaborate.
The response may
be a correct answer,
but it is incomplete.
15-20
them are irrelevant to
the topic discussed.
Some slides, pictures,
graphics and their
placement were
inappropriate. Slides
contained frequent
spelling or
grammatical errors.
Letters and fonts are a
little difficult to be
viewed and read by
most audience.
5-8
Student is not
consistent with the
level of
confidence/preparedne
ss they showed the
class but had some
strong moments.
Student occasionally
uses eye contact, but
still reads most of
report.
Student's voice is low.
Student incorrectly
pronounces terms.
Audience has difficulty
hearing presentation.
material.
A considerable amount
of slides, pictures,
graphics and their
placement were
inappropriate. Slides
contained a lot of
spelling or grammatical
errors. Letters and fonts
can hardly viewed and
read by the entire
audience.
1-4
Student is not confident
and demonstrated little
evidence of planning
prior to presentation.
Student reads all of
report with no eye
contact.
Student mumbles,
incorrectly pronounces
terms, and speaks too
quietly for students in the
back of class to hear.
Student does not know
his role in the group
presentation.
Student is confused
when to speak during
the presentation.
4-6
Student is
uncomfortable with the
question and is able to
answer only simple
questions and provides
a basic but almost
incomprehensible
response.
7-14
1-3
Student does not have
grasp of question or does
not understand the
question even after the
teacher/co-student has
repeated it slowly;
student cannot answer
questions about subject
matter.
1-6
6
Rubric for Grading Critique Question:
Performance Quality
Criteria
Quality and
Importance
1
Beginning
The question was not
clearly stated and not
appropriate with the
topic. It is not insightful
and reflective. It did not
provoke questions or
comments from other
people.not clearly
defined.
0-4
2
Developing
3
Accomplished
4
Exemplary
The question was not
clearly stated but it was
appropriate with the topic.
It is not insightful and
reflective. It did not
provoke questions or
comments from other
people.
The question was clearly stated
and it was appropriate with the
topic. It is somehow insightful
and reflective. It did not
provoke questions or comments
from other people.
The question was clearly
stated and it was appropriate
with the topic. It is also
insightful, reflective and
provokes questions or
comments from other
people.
5-6
7-9
10
Rubric for Grading Usability Report:
Criteria
Testing
Purpose (5
pts)
User
Profiles (10
pts)
Testing
procedure
(15 pts)
Data
Collection
(10 pts) –
1
Beginning
The purpose, goals,
and objectives for
conducting the test
are not clearly
defined.
0-1
Profile was not
completed. Profile
was poorly written.
0-2
Testing procedure did
not include discussion
of at least two of the
following: briefing,
debriefing,
measurements taken,
and how tasks were
chosen.
0-4
Performance Quality
2
3
Developing
Accomplished
The purpose for the test
The purpose, goals, and
is defined; but the goals
objectives for conducting the
and objectives
test are defined. There are
associated with the test
two or more spelling errors.
are not defined.
2-3
4
4
Exemplary
The purpose, goals, and
objectives for conducting
the test are defined.
3-5
6-8
5
Profile is complete,
accurate and has relevant
details.
9-10
Testing procedure did
not discuss only one of
the following: briefing,
debriefing,
measurements taken,
and how tasks were
chosen.
The following were discussed
but not clearly: briefing,
debriefing, measurements
taken, and how tasks were
chosen.
The following were
discussed clearly:
briefing, debriefing,
measurements taken, and
how tasks were chosen.
9-12
A description of the type of
data to be collected was
identified. Each data type was
associated to a testing goal to
help ensure that the
appropriate metrics were
being collected to identify if
the goal is met. There are two
or more spelling and
grammatical errors.
6-8
13-15
A description of the type
of data to be collected was
identified. Each data type
was associated to a testing
goal to help ensure that
the appropriate metrics
were being collected to
identify if the goal is met.
There are no spelling
errors.
9-10
Profile is incomplete or
has inaccuracies.
5-8
No mention regarding
the type of data
collected was
identified.
A list of the type of data
to be collected was
identified.
0-2
3-5
Profile is complete but there
are some inaccuracies
Score
7
Results of
the study
(30 pts) –
Recommen
dations (30
pts)
Data gathered were
poorly presented and
cannot be understood.
Data were not
analyzed. Usability
measures were
computed incorrectly
and usability
problems identified
are unimportant.
0-10
Recommendations
did not address the
problems.
0-6
Data gathered were
presented in appropriate
tables and graphs that
have correct labels.
Data were analyzed but
usability measures were
incorrectly computed.
Important usability
problems were not
identified.
11-15
Recommendations
addressed the problem
but solutions were not
illustrated.
11-15
Data gathered were presented
in appropriate tables and
graphs that have correct
labels. Data were analyzed
properly. Usability measures
were computed accurately but
usability problems identified
were not important.
16-25
Recommendations addressed
the problems. Sample
solutions were illustrated but
there are some lacking
information.
16-25
Data gathered were
presented in appropriate
tables and graphs that
have correct labels. Data
were analyzed properly.
Usability measures were
computed accurately and
problems were identified.
26-30
Recommendations
addressed the usability
problems found. Sample
solutions were given and
documented.
26-30
8
References:
Wickens, C. D., Helton, W.S., Hollands, J. G. and Banbury S. (2021). Engineering Psychology and
Human Performance (5th ed.). Routledge.
Anderson, J. (2020) Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications Ninth Edition. Worth Publishers.
Barnum, C. (2020). Usability Testing Essentials: Ready, Set ...Test!: Ready, Set...Test! 2nd Edition.
Morgan Kaufmann
Bridger, R. (2017). Introduction to ergonomics (4th ed.). London: CRC Press.
Eysenck, M and Keane, M. (2020). Cognitive Psychology: A Student's Handbook 8th Edition.
Psychology Press
Geisen, E. and Bergstrom, J. R. (2017). Usability Testing for Survey Research 1st Edition. Morgan
Kaufmann
Goldstein, E.B. (2018). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience
5th Edition. Cengage Learning
Lee, J., Wickens, C., Liu, Y. and Boyle, L. (2017) Designing for People: An Introduction to Human
Factors Engineering 3rd Edition. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
Wolfe, J., Kleunder, K., Levi, D., Bartushok, L., Herz, R., Klatzky, R. and Merfed, D. (2020).
Sensation and perception (6th ed.). Sinauer Associates is an imprint of Oxford University Press
.
Online Resources:
Cognitive ergonomics: a definition. Retrieved from http://www.haworth.com/enus/Knowledge/Workplace-Library/Documents/Cognitive-Ergonomics-A-Definition.pdf
Signal detection theory. Retrieved from http://www.cns.nyu.edu/~david/handouts/sdt/sdt.html
Learning and memory. from http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/memory.html
Details of a usability study. Retrieved from http://www.user.com/testing-details.htm
Usability Professionals Association. http://www.upassoc.org/
Darnell, M. Bad human factors designs. Retrieved from http://www.baddesigns.com/
Course Title (Code):
Date Effective:
Cognitive Ergonomics 2nd Term
Laboratory (LBYIE3C) AY 2022-2023
Date Revised:
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Jan-4-2023
Ms. Jazmin
Tangsoc
Dr. Charlle
Sy
9