26
Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science [email protected]

Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science [email protected]

  • View
    221

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Web-Based Peer Reviews

William J. Wolfe

CSUCI

Computer Science

[email protected]

Page 2: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Homework

Students

Teacher

Homework Grading Bottleneck

Page 3: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

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?

Page 4: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

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).

Page 5: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

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.

Page 6: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

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.

Page 7: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

The Course Web Site

Page 8: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

List of Student Links

Page 9: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Student Web Pages

Page 10: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Grading Criteria (Rubric)

Page 11: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Entering a Peer Review

Page 12: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Peer Reviews Received

Page 13: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

 ”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

Page 14: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

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

Page 15: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Average Peer Review Score

Page 16: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Scoring Comparison

Page 17: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Software Engineering: 34 students

Theory:

1 Assignment: 1,122 reviews.

15 Assignments: 16,830 reviews.

Fact:

1 Assignment: 300 – 400 reviews.

15 Assignments: 5,212 reviews.

Reviews were not mandatory.

Number of Reviews

Page 18: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

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 (Comp 350) Fall 2002

Page 19: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

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

Page 20: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Number of Reviews Received

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Students

#

Software Engineering (Comp 350) Fall 2002

Page 21: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Software Engineering (Comp 350) 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

Page 22: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

Number of Review s Given

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33

Students

#Software Engineering (Comp 350) Fall 2002

Page 23: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

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 (Comp 350) Fall 2002

Page 24: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

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.

Page 25: Web-Based Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe CSUCI Computer Science william.wolfe@csuci.edu

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)