CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2019 - E1990. Integrate suggestion detection algorithm: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== ''' Introduction ''' == | == ''' Introduction ''' == | ||
* On Expertiza, students receive review comments for their work from their peers. This review mechanism provides the students a chance to correct/modify their work, based on the reviews they receive. It is expected that the reviewers identify problems and suggest solutions, so that the students can improve their projects. | * On Expertiza, students receive review comments for their work from their peers. This review mechanism provides the students a chance to correct/modify their work, based on the reviews they receive. It is expected that the reviewers identify problems and suggest solutions, so that the students can improve their projects. | ||
* The | * The Instructor is facilitated with metrics such as average volume and total volume of the content of the reviews provided by a student. | ||
=== Current Implementation === | === Current Implementation === | ||
== ''' Problem Statement ''' == | == ''' Problem Statement ''' == | ||
* The reviewers can fill in the review comments on others' work, however they do not receive feedback on how effective their reviews are. It would thus make sense to have a feedback mechanism in place, which can identify whether a reviewer has identified problems and provided suggestions for a student or team's project. | * The reviewers can fill in the review comments on others' work, however they do not receive feedback on how effective their reviews are. It would thus make sense to have a feedback mechanism in place, which can identify whether a reviewer has identified problems and provided suggestions for a student or team's project. In order to achieve this, we need to identify the suggestions in the review comments to determine how useful a review would be. This would motivate the reviewers to give better constructive reviews . | ||
* We would also want the instructor of the course to be able to view how many constructive reviews a reviewer | * We would also want the instructor of the course to be able to view how many constructive reviews were provided by a reviewer in comparison to the average number of constructive reviews provided by the other reviewers of the course. | ||
== ''' Solutions ''' == | == ''' Solutions ''' == | ||
Revision as of 23:58, 9 November 2019
Introduction
- On Expertiza, students receive review comments for their work from their peers. This review mechanism provides the students a chance to correct/modify their work, based on the reviews they receive. It is expected that the reviewers identify problems and suggest solutions, so that the students can improve their projects.
- The Instructor is facilitated with metrics such as average volume and total volume of the content of the reviews provided by a student.
Current Implementation
Problem Statement
- The reviewers can fill in the review comments on others' work, however they do not receive feedback on how effective their reviews are. It would thus make sense to have a feedback mechanism in place, which can identify whether a reviewer has identified problems and provided suggestions for a student or team's project. In order to achieve this, we need to identify the suggestions in the review comments to determine how useful a review would be. This would motivate the reviewers to give better constructive reviews .
- We would also want the instructor of the course to be able to view how many constructive reviews were provided by a reviewer in comparison to the average number of constructive reviews provided by the other reviewers of the course.