CSC/ECE 517 Spring 2020 / E2023 Track the Time Students Look at Other Submissions: Difference between revisions

From Expertiza_Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2: Line 2:
__TOC__
__TOC__
== Problem Statement ==
== Problem Statement ==
Understanding how much time a student spends reviewing another's work is beneficial in order to better estimate the quality of said review. Given that fact it is important that Expertiza is able to track and display the given amount of time a student spends on a review.


The time spend on each review is a summation of multiple sources:
*





Revision as of 01:15, 8 April 2020

Problem Statement

Understanding how much time a student spends reviewing another's work is beneficial in order to better estimate the quality of said review. Given that fact it is important that Expertiza is able to track and display the given amount of time a student spends on a review.

The time spend on each review is a summation of multiple sources:


Current Implementation

Thus far, Expertiza does not have the aforementioned feature, however previous work was undertaken by other teams. The prior work of other teams was not merged into the Expertiza code base do to the following issues.

  1. E1705 identified how to track the active time of windows opened from the submitted links. (Wiki)
  2. E1791 provided detailed insights on how they planned to track time taken by a student in viewing a submission and possible edge cases. Further, they also implemented popups and figured out a way to open downloadable files. However, the details are rendered in a not-so-friendly manner and hence it was not merged. (Wiki)
  3. E1872 tried to solve this by incorporating the statistics in the review reports page, but their UI made the page cluttered and not friendly. Further, it was hard to identify which statistic belonged to which review, and there were almost no tests. (Wiki)
  4. E1989 tried to solve this by building off of E1791. The team took the base code and attempted to implement the ability to track time spent on the review page, as well as other external links, however the code was not merged due to a large amount of white-space, as well as difficulty in distinguishing actual code changes.

Proposed Solution