online student peer reviews william j. wolfe professor of computer science california state...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
227 views
TRANSCRIPT
Online Student Peer ReviewsWilliam J. Wolfe
Professor of Computer Science
California State University Channel Islands
Online Peer Reviews: Outline
• Pros and cons
• Implementation Considerations
• Student Websites
• Course Website
• Peer Review Process
• Results
Peer Reviews – Concerns
• Students don’t know the subject.• Students are not skilled evaluators.• Students might send inappropriate messages.• Students will not do that much work.• Students will copy (cheat)!• Keeping track of the reviews is very difficult.• Student privacy.
Peer Reviews – Advantages
• Students learn from each other.• Students get lots of feedback.• Students develop skills as evaluators.• Students learn to appreciate evaluation criteria.• Students see how they compare to their peers.• Students see the class from teacher’s perspective.• Students get to know one another.• Teacher plays role of supervisor
(A much better use of the teacher’s skills/knowledge).
Implementation Details
• What type of assignment?• How many reviews does each student do?• How many reviews does each student get?• Who reviews whom?• Does the reviewer have to be “qualified”?• Will students grade fairly and accurately?• Anonymous reviews?• Grades based on peer reviews?• Grade the peer reviews?• Opportunity to revise based on reviews?• Peer review of the peer reviews?
Peer Review System
Course Website
• Instructor sets up a course website
• Web pages
• Database
• Scripts
• Keeps track of all the activity/data
Peer Review Process
• Student:– Logs onto the course website
• Unique password for each student.– Sees list of URLs
• List of links to the student web sites– Picks one from the list
• Accesses a student web site• Finds the assignment
– Reviews the assignment.– Submits an anonymous review:
• score (1 – 10)• comment
– Goes back to the list of URLs and picks another.
System FlowLogon
Score + Comment
Student Web Site
Assignment
back back
List of URLs
link 1link 2link 3---
List of URLs
Student Website
• Students use their own website.• Students must have basic web skills.• Students must have access to a web service.
• Students cannot (easily) hide their identity.
COMP 449 Human Computer Interaction
John Doe
Weekly Assignments COMP 449 Assignment #1
COMP 449 Assignment #2
COMP 449 Assignment #3
COMP 449 Assignment #4
COMP 449 Assignment #5
COMP 449 Assignment #6
COMP 449 Assignment #7
COMP 449 Assignment #8
COMP 449 Assignment #9
COMP 449 Assignment #10
COMP 449 Assignment #11
COMP 449 Assignment #12
COMP 449 Assignment #13
COMP 449 Assignment #14
Score + Comment
Grading Criteria (Rubric)
Peer Reviews Received
”Looks pretty good”
Sample Peer Review
Perfunctory Reviews
perfunctory \pur-FUNGK-tuh-ree\ --adjective : Done merely to carry out a duty; performed mechanically; done in a careless and superficial manner; characterized by indifference
You should have requirements that detail the concepts in section 4.2. Although you had some very good points (i.e. the database should look up student's degree requirements; view should list courses, etc...) almost all your requirements can be more detailed. Go through section 4.2 (each of the sections) and think of what the program would need to do to effective run. Some good examples of what requirements are necessary are on others' websites, however I'll give some to you now:1.Is there a timeline requirement?2.Is there a requirement on how much(or how little) this will cost?3.Is there security requirements?4.Is there user view requirements?These(and many other questions) are what you should answer in your requirements definition document. Good luck on Assignment #3.
Detailed Peer Review
Let’s try it out:
http://faculty.csuci.edu/william.wolfe/ucd/online/
Avg Review Score (Comp 449 Spring 05)
0123456789
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Student Ranking
Sco
re
# Missing Homworks Comp 449 Spring 2005
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Student Ranking
Sco
re
Average Score Given Comp 449 Spring 2005
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Student Ranking
Sco
re
# Reviews Received Comp 449 Spring 2005
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Student Ranking
Sco
re
# Reviews Given Comp 449 Spring 2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Student Ranking
Sco
re
Length of Comments Given Comp 449 Spring 2005
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Student Ranking
Sco
re
Length of Comments Received Comp 449 Spring 2005
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Student Ranking
Sco
re
Logon ID Comp 449 Spring 2005
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Student Ranking
ID #
Comp 449 Spring 2005 Assignment 1 Student ID:6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
student
sc
ore You Gave
Class Average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You Gave
Class Avg
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
You Gave
Class Avg
Summary
Peer Review Process:
• Stimulated class activity.
• Some passionate participation.
• The “audience effect”: brought up all performance levels.
• Very accurate evaluations (as a whole).
• Immediate access to examples of good and poor work.
• Addressed late and incomplete work.
• Requires web skills.
1. Online Student Peer Reviews, Proceedings of ACM SIGITE Annual Conference, Salt Lake City Utah, Oct. 28-30, 2004.
2. Student Peer Reviews in an Upper-Division Mathematics Class, exchanges THE ONLINE JOURNAL OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN
THE CSU, (From the Classroom), September, 2003.
3. Course Web Site:
http://compsci.csuci.edu/wwolfe/ucd/online
Password: GUEST
References
Acknowledgements
Carol Holder (Director of Faculty Development CSUCI)
Paul Rivera (Economics, CSUCI)
Harley Baker (Psychology, CSUCI)
Bob Bleicher (Education, CSUCI)
Ivona Grzegorzcyk (Mathematics, CSUCI)
Todd Gibson (Colorado Institute of Technology)
Michael Cook (Forstmann Leff).
Peer Reviews – How?
• Student Web Pages: – Students post homework solutions on their
own web page.
• Course Web Site:– Set up course web site to manage all the peer
review activity. Keep track of: • Links to student web pages, • Peer Reviews:
– Scores,– Comments.
• Anonymous reviews.
The Course Web Site
Student Web Pages
Average Peer Review Score
Scoring Comparison
Software Engineering (CSC 4508):
34 students
Theory:
1 Assignment: 1,122 reviews.
15 Assignments: 16,830 reviews.
Fact:
1 Assignment: 300 – 400 reviews.
15 Assignments: 5,212 reviews.
Number of Reviews
Average Review Score
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Students
Score
Software Engineering (CSC4508) Fall 2002
Software Engineering (CSC 4508) Fall 2002
Average Review Score Given
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Student
sco
re
Number of Reviews Received(CSC 4508 Fall 2002)
0255075
100125150175200225250275300325350375400
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Student Ranking
Number of Reviews Given(CSC 4508 Fall 2002)
0255075
100125150175200225250275300325350375400
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Student Ranking
Avg Deviation(CSC 4508 Fall 2002)
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
11.11.21.31.41.51.61.71.81.9
2
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Student Ranking
Avg Delta(CSC 4508 Fall 2002)
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Student Ranking
Distribution of Scores
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Score
Cou
nt
Software Engineering (CSC 4508) Fall 2002
Logon Sequence(CSC 4508 Fall 2002)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33
Students
Average Review Score Received
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Student Ranking
sco
re
Real Analysis (Math 351) Spring 2003