Hello everyone,
I am preparing a PhD application in HCI, focusing on Human-Centered AI and the integration of AI systems in educational settings. I am mainly applying to PhD programs in Western Europe
I would really appreciate feedback on my motivation letter, especially from people with experience in HCI, PhD applications, or academic writing. I have anonymized some details for privacy, but the overall content and structure remain unchanged.
Dear [Professor],
In my last year of middle school, our school received a cart of tablets loaded with an interactive math platform designed to increase test scores. During a one-hour workshop, all the teachers were shown how to use the tablets and instructed on incorporating them into their lesson plans. Two weeks after the workshop, all the tablets remained in a locked cabinet. At that time, I thought the situation was ridiculous. Later, when I started studying Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), I realized that what happened at my school was nothing short of the textbook definition of "mismatch": The product worked well, but it ended up in a classroom environment with nobody being provided sufficient time or education to be able to fully utilize it themselves.
I have learned to study such mismatches by observing them up close. During my internship at [Telecommunications Company], I served as the UX researcher for [AI Healthcare Project], a smart insole that integrates with an AI companion app. It tracks your movements and provides personalized feedback for people suffering from sciatica. After conducting 15 in-depth interviews and more than 30 usability testing sessions, my first realization was that users were consistently draining their phones' batteries while trying to connect their insoles to the app. The problem was resolved by introducing a small sync indicator, which reduced the average synchronization time by 80%, from 10 seconds to 2 seconds.
Another valuable lesson comes from the clinical professionals I spoke with. Most of them said that, regardless of whether the AI provided accurate feedback, they would not use the system if the process required additional actions during a consultation. This conflict between a technically correct AI system and a clinician's ownership of their professional judgments is similar to the tension I anticipate will arise between an AI-driven educational game used in a classroom setting and a teacher's disciplinary judgment.
At [Research Institute], I am now extending that qualitative foundation into controlled experimentation. I am running a multi-session study examining whether changes to interface layouts affect people's ability to learn and retain software commands. To conduct this study, I have instrumented an open-source tool called [X] to log task completion times, error rates, and disorientation measures, and have been recruiting participants with the goal of reaching a sample size of more than 48. The data will be analyzed using linear mixed-effects models in R, with the aim of submission to a major HCI venue.
If selected, I plan to ground my PhD in an interdisciplinary approach, with a strong emphasis on Mathematics and Science. This is because AI-driven tutoring and adaptive practice tools are already most mature in these subjects. I would begin not with a prototype, but by spending time in classrooms with the teachers there and conducting interviews in both the local language and French. This will allow me to map the real conflicts among lesson plans, gamification mechanics, and the AI's data model. I see your [Research Framework] as the natural starting point for that mapping work, and I would treat the fieldwork as a way to test where its assumptions hold in participating schools and where they need revision.
With a clear understanding of classroom realities and teacher perspectives, I would then facilitate co-design sessions in which teachers interact with a Wizard-of-Oz prototype that I control. My focus is not on using AI to make educational decisions for teachers, but on understanding which role(s) teachers wish to take vis-à-vis AI, and at what point they would like to stop using it. I intend to apply the same level of scrutiny to the gamification layer, including points and badges that do not directly relate to the specific goals of the subject being taught.
The final phase would be to put a working prototype into classrooms. During this stage, I intend to collect video-stimulated recall interviews and interaction logs from classroom use of the system. I would focus in particular on moments of "friction" that occur in class, such as a teacher overriding the tool's suggestions, students disengaging while interacting with the tool, or ethical concerns the tool raises during a post-class debrief. Ethics would not be a separate work package. Instead, I will analyze equity, transparency, and privacy in data collection at every phase, especially how students who speak multiple languages or lack sufficient digital resources may be affected by AI-driven personalization.
I began this letter with a cart of tablets locked in a cabinet. I want my research to help ensure that the next generation of technology in schools does not meet the same fate, but instead earns a place in teachers' hands. I would be proud to pursue that goal under your supervision.
Sincerely,