A word
Hi,
I am Pierre Lévy and will teach the course USMC85 - Dialoguing this year.
Briefly about me –
I am interested in the way we deal with and transform the world at hand in everyday life. This constant effort of appropriation maintains a certain form of freedom and quietude. While I experiment a lot on my own everyday life, I also try to structure my design teachings and research activities so that I can explore and progress on these inquiries further.
I am a professor of design of Cnam since 2021. Previously, I have been educated in mechanical engineering (master level), design and neuroscience (during my PhD). My current research is situated in-between the fields of design, information sciences and humanities. I have worked a few years in the industry before entering the academic world. Although I was raised in France, I have lived a long time in Japan and in the Netherlands.
Briefly about the course
This course intends to challenge learners on the way exposing their work can communicate their intent to either convince or create a dialog (by means of a rising curiosity and interest). Exploring tools and techniques for writing, visualising and presenting, this course provides the basics to improve communication skills in projects and research.
Objectives
Starting considerations:
- encoding ≠ decoding. What you mean is not always what they understand. This gap is where rhetoric helps you bridge.
- Noise can interfere at any stage (distractions, misunderstandings, language barriers)
Objectives:
- acquiring techniques for structuring and performing a presentation,
- using and adapting different media for presenting,
- using relevant resources to continue progressing independently. The development of these skills will be based on projects selected by the learners (their own or chosen projects)
Schedule 2026-2027 (expected)
- 25 September 2026 · 13:45-17:00 (ALL) - Introduction / Rhetoric + Documentation
- 02 October 2026 · 13:45-17:00 (MECA1) - Writing
- 09 October 2026 · 13:45-17:00 (IoT1) - Writing
- 23 October 2026 · 13:45-17:00 (TLC1) - Writing
- 06 November 2026 · 13:45-17:00 (ALL) - Documentation
- 13 November 2026 · 13:45-17:00 (MECA2) - Visualising
- 20 November 2026 · 13:45-17:00 (IoT2) - Visualising
- 27 November 2026 · 13:45-17:00 (MECA3) - Presenting
- 04 December 2026 · 13:45-17:00 (TLC2) - Visualising
- 18 December 2026 · 13:45-17:00 (IoT3) - Presenting
- 08 January 2027 · 13:45-17:00 (TLC3) - Presenting
Structure of the course
- Each course will be composed of small lectures, exercises (not graded), discussions, and assignments (graded).
- You are required to have pens or pencils (multiple colors) and some sheets of paper (A5~A4), a computer or a tablet.
Dynamics of the course
- I speak as long as I am not interrupted. Feel free to ask questions, to engage in discussions at any time with the class in a mannerly way.
- Discussions are open and shared; perspectives may vary and should be appreciated as long as they are constructive and respectful.
- Presence of all is required from the start of the the course. Unless correctly justified, delays or absences have impacts on the grade.
Deliverables
- Deliverables are always submitted on Moodle, be careful of deadlines.
- Deadlines will vary between masters (MECA, IoT, TLC). Submit it at the proper place on Moodle, at the correct time.
- Unless specified, deadlines out of course time will be 10 days after the last course.
Using AI and other tools
- You are authorized to use AI or other tools.
- If you use such tools (whatever the output)
- You have to declare how you have used it (for your own research, to support the writing of the deliverable),
- You have to explain your inquiry (prompts) and use of the results.
- What the tool provides you will not be evaluated (eg. if you use the text provided by an AI as is, the text will not be graded), but your wise use of the tool and critical use of the results will be. Therefore, a wise and reflective use of such tools may lead to a good grade.
- Failing to declare the use of such tools will be considered as cheating.
Evaluation rubrics
Participation and presence
Requires passing average on the three assignments
| Criteria | Excellent (16-20) | Good (13-16) | Satisfactory (10-13) | Insufficient (0-9) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attendance | Present at all sessions (100%) | Present at all sessions (100%) | Present at all sessions (100%) | One or more than 1 unjustified absence |
| Engagement | Asks relevant questions, contributes to discussions regularly | Participates when prompted, shows interest | Passive but attentive | Disengaged, distracted |
| Peer interaction | Provides constructive feedback to peers, engages respectfully | Interacts positively with peers | Limited interaction | Disruptive or absent from discussions |
Writing assignment
| Criteria | Excellent (16-20) | Good (13-16) | Satisfactory (10-13) | Insufficient (0-9) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structure and clarity (30%) | Clear logical flow, strong topic sentences, smooth transitions between paragraphs | Good structure, mostly clear, some awkward transitions | Basic structure present but unclear in places | Disorganized, difficult to follow |
| Content quality (25%) | Demonstrates deep understanding, strong arguments supported by evidence | Good understanding, adequate support for claims | Surface-level understanding, weak support | Lacks substance, unsupported claims |
| Language and style (25%) | Precise vocabulary, varied sentence structure, appropriate academic tone | Clear language, mostly appropriate style | Simple language, some inappropriate phrasing | Frequent errors impede comprehension |
| Conciseness and focus (20%) | Every sentence serves the argument, no redundancy | Mostly focused, minor redundancies | Some irrelevant content, could be more concise | Verbose, loses focus frequently |
Additional considerations:
- Grammar and spelling errors: -1 point per 5 errors (maximum -5 points)
- Failure to follow assignment requirements: up to -5 points
- Late submission: -2 points per day late (maximum 10 days)
Visualising assignment
| Criteria | Excellent (16-20) | Good (13-16) | Satisfactory (10-13) | Insufficient (0-9) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity and readability (30%) | Immediately understandable, excellent visual hierarchy, appropriate complexity for audience | Clear and easy to follow, good visual flow | Understandable but requires effort | Confusing or misleading |
| Design quality (25%) | Professional appearance, excellent use of color/typography/layout, no chartjunk | Good design, appropriate visual choices | Basic design, some poor choices | Poor design, distracting elements |
| Data accuracy and honesty (25%) | Data presented accurately, no misleading elements, appropriate scale and labeling | Accurate data, mostly honest presentation | Minor inaccuracies or misleading elements | Significant distortions or dishonest presentation |
| Technical execution (20%) | High resolution (300 DPI or vector), proper format, no pixelation or artifacts | Good quality, minor technical issues | Acceptable quality, noticeable issues | Poor quality, unprofessional |
Additional considerations:
- Failure to include name and registration number: -2 points
- Wrong format or resolution: -3 points
- AI comparison section missing or incomplete: -5 points
- Late submission: -2 points per day late (maximum 10 days)
Presenting assignment
| Criteria | Excellent (16-20) | Good (13-16) | Satisfactory (10-13) | Insufficient (0-9) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content and structure (30%) | Clear opening/body/closing, strong message, appropriate timing, compelling narrative | Good structure, clear message, mostly within time | Basic structure present, timing issues | Disorganized, unclear message, major timing problems |
| Visual support (25%) | Slides enhance presentation, excellent design, one idea per slide, high-quality visuals | Good slides that support the talk, mostly appropriate design | Basic slides, some distract from content | Poor slides that detract from presentation |
| Delivery (30%) | Confident, natural pace, good eye contact, effective use of voice and gestures, handles Q&A well | Good delivery, mostly confident, adequate eye contact | Nervous delivery, reads from slides, limited eye contact | Unprepared, reads entirely from notes/slides |
| Engagement (15%) | Captivates audience, creates interest, memorable presentation | Maintains audience interest, engaging | Limited engagement, audience loses focus | Fails to engage audience |
Grade calculation
Delayed submission: 2 points per day
If Presence grade is higher than 10/20: Final grade = (Writing × 0.28) + (Visualising × 0.28) + (Presenting × 0.28) + (Presence × 0.16)
If Presence grade is lower than 10/20: Final grade = Presence grade
Rehearsal::
- If your global grade is bellow 10/20, you will receive an individual proposition for rehearsal. If the Presence grade is lower than 10/20, it will be a global rehearsal.
- If your global grade is above 10/20, you may ask for a rehearsal on any grade lower than 10/20. At your own initiative.
- The rehearsal grade will replace the new grade, regardless it is higher or lower.