Abstract:

Interdisciplinary student teams in Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) courses are often expected to develop “T-shaped” capabilities, yet work in practice frequently fragments along disciplinary lines. Technically oriented students dominate implementation, while conceptually oriented peers focus on ideation and presentation.

This paper reports a mixed-methods baseline study of these dynamics in an intensive prototyping module within a problem-based learning (PBL) HCI curriculum at Aalborg University. Twenty-one master’s students from two programs completed pre- and post-course questionnaires and produced six team artifacts, which were evaluated with a rubric focusing on brief compliance, evidence chains, iteration, and digital implementation.

Students reported high confidence in prototyping and testing and strongly endorsed evidence-driven design principles. However, time-on-task data and artifact scores revealed that most effort was devoted to building and concept development, with minimal investment in testing, analysis, or documented change. Evidence chains and iterations were strongest when concept briefs provided clear user flows and constraints; more open-ended or technically demanding briefs yielded weaker documentation and almost no visible testing.

Based on these findings, this paper proposes an intervention combining structured role rotations, reflective prompts, and disciplined use of generative AI to support balanced participation and deeper learning. The study contributes a baseline description of skill asymmetry in a PBL HCI prototyping course, highlights how task design shapes iteration quality, and suggests diagnostic indicators that educators can use to monitor whether experiential learning cycles are being completed.

Keywords:

Human-centered computing, Computing education, Interactive learning environments, education.