Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Online Peer Reviews
William J. Wolfe
Professor of Computer Science
California State University Channel Islands
Homework
Students
Teacher
Homework Grading Bottleneck
Students/Graders
Teacher/Supervisor
But:
1. N x N-1 copies!
2. Students can’t grade accurately.
3. Too much work for the students.
4. Cheating?
Peer Reviews – Why?
• 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 peers.• Students see class from the teacher’s perspective.• Students get to know each other.• Teacher plays role of supervisor
(A much better use of the teacher’s skills/knowledge).
Peer Reviews – Why Not?
• Students don’t know the subject.• Students are not skilled evaluators.• Students can not, or will not, do that
much work.• Students will copy (cheat)!• Keeping track of the reviews is very
difficult.• Student privacy.
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
List of Student Links
Student Web Pages
Grading Criteria (Rubric)
Entering a Peer Review
Peer Reviews Received
”Looks pretty good”
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
Sample Peer Review
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.
Sample Peer Review
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
Summary
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, incomplete, and sloppy work.
Needed access to web servers and web page skills.
Acknowledgements
Carol Holder (Director of Faculty Development CSUCI)
Paul Rivera (Economics, CSUCI)
Harley Baker (Psychology, CSUCI)
Bob Bleicher (Education, CSUCI)
Ivona Grzegorzcyk (Mathematics, CSUCI)
Nathaniel Emerson (Mathematics, CSUCI)
David Hibbits (Computer Science, CSUCI)
Todd Gibson (Colorado Institute of Technology)
Michael Cook (Forstmann Leff).
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
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
