Expertiza_Wiki - User contributions [en]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2078. Improve self-review Link peer review & self-review to derive grades

2020-11-13T03:15:37Z

Jhnguye4:

== Project Overview ==

In Expertiza, it is currently possible to check the “Allow self-review” box on the Review Strategy tab of assignment creation, and then an author will be asked to review his/her own submission in addition to the submissions of others. But as currently implemented, nothing is done with the scores on these self-reviews.

There has been a previous attempt at solving this problem, but there were several issues with that implementation:

*The formula for weighting self-reviews is not modular. It needs to be, since different instructors may want to use different formulas, so several should be supported.
*There are not enough comments in the code.
*It seems to work for only one round of review.

View documentation for previous implementation [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1984._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_&_self-review_to_derive_grades here].

=== Objectives ===

Our objectives for this project are the following:

*Display the self-review score with peer-review scores for the logged in user
*Implement a way to achieve a composite score with the combination of the self-review score and peer-review scores
*Implement a requirement for the logged in user to self-review before viewing peer-reviews
*Assure that we overcome the issues outlined for the previous implementation of this project

=== Team ===

Courtney Ripoll (ctripoll)

Jonathan Nguyen (jhnguye4)

Justin Kirschner (jkirsch)

=== Files Involved ===

'''Back-end'''

*app/controllers/grades_controller.rb
*app/helpers/grades_helper.rb
*app/models/assignment_participant.rb
*app/models/author_feedback_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/response_map.rb
*app/models/review_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/self_review_response_map.rb
*app/models/teammate_review_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/vm_question_response.rb

'''Front-end'''

*app/views/assignments/edit/_review_strategy.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant_charts.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant_title.html.erb
*app/views/grades/view_team.html.erb

'''Testing'''

*spec/models/assignment_particpant_spec.rb
*spec/controllers/grades_controller_spec.rb

=== Use Case for Self-Assessment ===

The following diagram illustrates how the self-assessment feature should work between student and instructor within Expertiza. In summary, an instructor can create an assignment and enable self-review. A student can then submit to the assignment creates by the instructor and provide a self-review. Only then can the student view all of their review scores.

[[File:Use case diagram e2078.png|750px]]

== Design Plan for Tasks ==

=== Display Self-Review Scores w/ Peer-Reviews ===

It should be possible to see self-review scores juxtaposed with peer-review scores. Design a way to show them in the regular "View Scores" page and the alternate (heat-map) view. They should be shown amidst the other reviews, but in a way that highlights them as being a different kind of review.

==== Design Plan ====

In the current implementation of Expertiza, students can view a compilation of all peer review scores for each review question and an average of those peer-reviews. For our project, we plan to add the self-review score alongside the peer-review scores for each review question. In the wire-frame below, note that for each criterion there is a column for each peer-review score and a single column for the self-review score. Currently implemented in the system, the avg column takes an average of all the review scores. These scores (peer-reviews average and self-review) will be used to determine the overall composite score for the team's reviews. Furthermore, the average composite score is displayed on the page under the average peer review score, labeled "Final Average Peer Review Score". How we plan to derive a composite score is explained in detail in the follow section [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Derive_Composite_Score Derive Composite Score].

[[File:View wireframe v3.png|700px]]

In the alternate view, our plan does not alter the current interface too much. The only addition we plan to implement is additional columns for the self-review average and for the composite (final) score a student has received for an assignment. Likewise, there is now an additional doughnut chart providing a visual of the composite score (green) alongside the final review score (yellow).

[[File:Alternate view wireframe v3.png|1150px]]

''Note: The diagrams above are wireframes. The values displayed are not be taken literally, they are for design purposes only.''

=== Derive Composite Score ===

Implement a way to combine self-review and peer-review scores to derive a composite score. The basic idea is that the authors get more points as their self-reviews get closer to the scores given by the peer reviewers. So the function should take the scores given by peers to a particular rubric criterion and the score given by the user. The result of the formula should be displayed in a conspicuous page on the score view.

The formula we use to determine a final grade from, 1) the peer reviews and 2) how closely self reviews match the peer reviews, uses a type of additive scoring rule, which computes a weighted average between team score (peer reviews) and student rating (self review). More specifically, it uses a type of mixed additive-multiplicative scoring rule, which multiplies student score (self review) by a function of the team score (peer reviews), and adds its weighted version to the weighted peer review score. This is also known as 'assessment by adjustment'. The formula is a practical scoring rule for additive scoring with unsigned percentages (grades from 0%-100%).

The pseudo-code for a function that implements the formula is as follows:
function(avg_peer_rev_score, self_rev_score, w)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(SELF)

where:
SELF = avg_peer_review_score * (1 - (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score))
and where:
avg_peer_review_score is simply the mechanism already existing in Expertiza for assigning a grade from peer review scores.

and where:
w - weight - (0 <= w <= 1) is the inverse proportion of how much of the final grade is determined by the closeness of the self review to the average of the peer reviews (w is the proportion of the grade to be determined by the original grade determination: the peer review scores).

An example:
* The average peer review score is 4/5, the self review score is 5/5.
* The instructor chooses w to equal 0.95, so that 5% of the grade is determined from the deviation of the self review from the peer reviews.
The final grade, instead of being the peer review score of 4/5 ('''80%''') is now:
0.95*(4/5) + 0.05*(4/5*(1-|4/5-5/5|/(4/5))) = '''79%'''.
If the instructor chose w to equal 0.85 (instead of 0.95), the grade is '''77%''' (instead of 79%) because deviation from peer reviews is a larger weighted value of the final grade.

The above is a basic version of the grading formula. It is basic in that it only allows deviations of the self review scores from the peer review scores to result in a decrease in the final grade ''and'' a deviation will ''always'' result in a decrease of the final grade. We propose another parameter to the formula, l - leniency, as another way (in addition to w - weight) for the instructor to modularly determine the final grade for an assignment. The parameter l - leniency - can determine a threshold by which the final grade will account/adjust for self reviews' deviations from peer reviews only when the deviation reaches this threshold (measured in percentage deviation from the average peer review). If the difference does not meet the threshold, no penalty will be subtracted from the peer review. In addition, if the difference does not meet the threshold (the self review score is sufficiently close to the peer review scores), the instructor can choose to add points to final grade based on the magnitude of the difference. Since the formula is a mixed additive-multiplicative scoring rule (mentioned above), the instructor needs to simply pick l - leniency - as a percentage (similar to the functionality of w).

To recap: w should be chosen based on the instructor's desired percentage (w) ''of the final grade'' to be determined from peer reviews and, conversely, the instructor's desired percentage (1-w) ''of the final grade'' to be determined by the extent to which self reviews deviate from peer reviews. In addition, l - leniency, should be chosen based on the instructor's desired percentage ''of the deviation of self review from peer review'' that could result in no grade deduction from the deviation if the deviation is sufficiently small (or even a grade increase if the instructor wants to increase the score of individuals with a small deviation).

The following is pseudo-code for if an instructor wishes to not subtract from the final grade if the deviation is sufficiently small. Notice that the leniency condition, the instructor's desired percentage ''of the deviation of self review from peer review'', is naturally part of the grading formula in SELF:
if |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score <= l(leniency)
grade = avg_peer_review_score
else
run formula

In addition. instead of assigning a final grade equal to the avg_peer_review_score if the leniency condition is met, the grade can be adjusted (increased) if the instructor wishes to do so, since the self review is sufficiently close (determined by l) to the peer reviews. The formula for determining the final grade would thus add the small extent of deviation to the final grade rather than subtracting it (in SELF, 1 - ..., is changed to 1 + ...):
function(avg_peer_rev_score, self_rev_score, w)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(SELF)

where:
SELF = avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''+''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score))

In this case, the pseudo-code is:
if |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score <= l(leniency)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''+''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score)))
else
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''-''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score)))

Using the previous example (average peer review score is 4/5, self review score is 5/5, w = 0.95), the self review score (5/5) differs by 25% of the peer review score (4/5). In other words, |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score = 1/4 = 25%. Based on l - leniency, the instructor can decide:

:1. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently large to warrant penalizing the final grade by (1-w)*(SELF) (so that the final grade is '''79%''', instead of 80%).

:2. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently small to warrant keeping the final grade as grade = avg_peer_review_score, with no penalty for the deviation (so that the grade is '''80%''')

:3. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently small to warrant increasing the final grade by (1-w)*(SELF), where the SELF formula contains a 1 + ..., instead of a 1 - ... (so that the grade is '''81%''')

==== Implementation Plan ====

In order to incorporate the combined score into grading, we will change the logic in grades_controller.rb, which implements the grading formula. We will remove most of the code from the previous implementation since the formula/method used is unsatisfactory. '''With the new grading formula, the grades_controller can assign a final grade by following these steps:'''

:1. We can obtain the peer review ratings and the score/grade derived from them by calling scores(), which then calls compute_assignment_score(), both from the assignment_participant.rb model. In order to compute the assignment score, compute_assignment_score() calls another method named get_assessments_for(), which is located in review_questionnare.rb model.

:2. The get_assessments_for() method will call the reviews() method, also located in assignment_participant.rb.

:3. Finally, the reviews() method will get the scores by simply calling the get_assessments_for() method located in the response_map.rb model.

:4. Once the scores have been retrieved by using the various model methods, the controller can use the scores to calculated a final grade by using the formula. This grade is then passed to the view.

Below is a flow diagram for how grades_controller.rb, which implements the grading formula (as mentioned in the first step) and presents the grade in the view (top of the diagram). Note: The self-review scores are obtained by using the true parameter in all the methods calls (as shown in the diagram), whereas the peer-review scores are retrieved similarly but omitting this parameter.

[[File:E1926_code_flow.png]]

=== Implement Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ===

There would be no challenge in giving the same self-review scores as the peer reviewers gave if the authors could see peer-review scores before they submitted their self-reviews. The user should be required to submit their self-evaluation(s) before seeing the results of their peer evaluations.

==== Implementation Plan ====

By being able to self review before peer review, it allows the author of the assignment to have an unbiased opinion on the quality of work they are submitting. When the judgement of their work is not influenced by others who have given feedback, they are able to get a clearer view of the strengths and weaknesses of their assignment. Self reviews before peer reviews can also be more beneficial to the user as it can show if the user has the correct or wrong approach to their solution compared to their peers.

In the current implementation of self review, the user is able to see the peer reviews before they have made their own self review. The reason that this is occurring is due to the fact that when the user goes to see their scores, the page is not checking that a self review has been submitted. In order to fix this issue, we will add a boolean parameter to self review and pass it to viewing pages where it is called. When a user is at the student tasks view, the "Your scores" link will be disabled if the user has not filled out their self review. If the user has filled out their self review, then he/she will be redirected to the [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Display_Self-Review_Scores_w.2F_Peer-Reviews Display Self-Review Scores with Peer-Reviews] page.

Below is a control flow diagram for how a student will be able to view their peer and self review score.

[[File:Control_Flow_SelfReview.png]]

== Implementation of Design Plan ==

=== Display Self-Review Scores w/ Peer-Reviews ===

The following code and UI screenshots illustrate the implementation of displaying the self-review scores alongside the peer-reviews. This also includes displaying the final score that aggregates the self-review score utilizing a chosen formula. The final score derivation process is described in the [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Derive_Composite_Score Derive Composite Score] task.

'''View Team Review Scores (view_team)'''

The view_team.html.erb file is responsible for the display of the peer-review scores heat map. In this implementation, we added a display for the Final Average Peer Review Score, which is the score that takes the average self-review score into consideration based on a set formula. Additionally, there is now a self-review score column (highlighted in cyan) that displays the self-review score for each criterion alongside the peer-review given.

[[File:selfreviews16.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews17.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews18.png|1200px]]

The following screenshot shows the final result of the code implementation.

[[File:Selfreview final screenshot2.png|1150px]]

'''Alternate View (view_my_scores)'''

The _participant_*.html.erb files are responsible for the UI display of viewing assignment scores in the Alternate View. The following implementation shows the addition of the new columns for self-review score and the final composite score (along with a doughnut chart for the final score).

[[File:selfreviews14.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews15.png|1200px]]

The following screenshot shows the final result of the code implementation.

[[File:Selfreview final screenshot1.png|1150px]]

'''Response Map for Reviews'''

The following code implementations illustrate the response map additions for the response mapping. This is responsible for the functionality of conducting a self-review and gathering the results per assignment.

[[File:selfreviews9.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews10.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews11.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews12.png|1200px]]

=== Derive Composite Score ===
In the following screenshots we have implemented code in the grades_controller.rb to call upon helper functions in the grades_helper.rb that will compute the peer and self final score. The formula that will be chosen depends on which formula the instructor selects when they create the assignment.
[[File:selfreviews1.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews2.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews3.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews4.png|1200px]]

'''Instructor View for Reviews'''

The following screenshot is the code that we implemented so that a teacher can select which formula he/she wants to use for the assignment

[[File:selfreviews13.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews19.png|1000px]]

=== Implement Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ===
The following screenshots are the files which we implemented booleans so that a student will not be able to see their scores unless they have filled out their self reviews.
[[File:selfreviews5.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews6.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews7.png|1200px]]
[[File:selfreviews8.png|1200px]]

== Test Plan ==

Our project will utilize various testing techniques. These methods of testing involve manual testing (black box testing) and RSpec testing (white box testing).

=== Manual Testing ===

'''Credentials'''

*username: ''instructor6'', password: ''password''
*username: ''student3000'', password: ''password''
*username: ''student4000'', password: ''password''

The steps outlined for manual testing will become clearer upon implementation, but the proposed plan is the following:

==== Prerequisite Steps ====

:1. Log in to the development instance of Expertiza as an ''instructor6''
:2. Create an assignment that allows for self-reviews. To allow for self-reviews, check the box "Allow Self-Reviews" in the Review Strategy tab.
::2.1. Make sure the submission deadline is after the current date and time
::2.2. Likewise, the review deadline should then be greater than the submission deadline
:3. Add ''student3000'' and ''student4000'' to the newly created assignment (i.e. "Test Assignment")

==== Must Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ====

This test will assure that the logged in user cannot view their peer-reviews for a given assignment unless they have performed a self-review.

:1. Sign as ''student3000''
::1.1. Submit any file or link to the new Test Assignment
:2. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::2.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:3. Log in as ''student3000''
:4. Attempt to view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores" within the Test Assignment. This button should be disabled
:5. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::5.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change back the submission date to be in the future
:6. Log in as ''student3000'
::6.1. Perform a self-review
:7. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::7.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:8. Log in as ''student3000'
::8.1. Go view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores". This button should now be enabled

==== Viewing Self Review Score Juxtaposed with Peer Review Scores ====

This test confirms that the the students self-review scores are displayed with peer-review scores. It additionally confirms that self-review scores are considered in the review grading with the calculation of a composite score.

:1. Sign as ''student3000''
::1.1. Submit any file or link to the new Test Assignment
::1.2. Perform a self-review
:2. Repeat step 1 ''student4000''
:3. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::3.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:4. Log back in as ''student4000''
::4.1. Perform a peer-review on the submission from ''student3000''
:5. Log in as ''student3000''
:6. Go view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores".
::6.1. Assure that there is a column for self-review scores
::6.2. Confirm there is a composite score calculation underneath the average peer review score.
:7. Go back to the assignment view. Click "Alternate View"
::7.1. Confirm that there is a new column illustrating the self-review average
::7.2. Confirm that there is a column in the grades table displaying composite score (Final score)
::7.3. Check is there is a doughnut chart displaying the composite score (Final score)

=== RSpec Testing ===

We plan to implement new RSpec tests to verify our implementations of the composite score calculation and the requirement to self-review first. Once written, we will be able to go more in-depth on the details of our testing.

==== Test Composite Score Derivation ====
The following screenshot is an rspec test that we added in the grades_helper_spec.rb file. This tested to see if the Vossen formula that we implemented would output the correct score when given a average peer, average self review score, weight, and leniency.
[[File:selfreviews20.png|1200px]]

== Relevant Links ==

'''Our repository''': https://github.com/jhnguye4/expertiza/tree/beta

'''Pull request''': https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1831

'''Video demo''': Does not exist yet

== References ==

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Vossen/publication/333022439_SCORING_MODELS_FOR_PEER_ASSESSMENT_IN_TEAM-BASED_LEARNING_PROJECTS/links/5cd6d6b4299bf14d958a4b99/SCORING-MODELS-FOR-PEER-ASSESSMENT-IN-TEAM-BASED-LEARNING-PROJECTS.pdf Scoring models for peer assessment in team-based learning projects]

[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1611 E1984 Pull Request]

[https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1984._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_&_self-review_to_derive_grades E1984 wiki]

File:Selfreviews20.png

2020-11-13T03:14:57Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews19.png

2020-11-13T03:03:43Z

Jhnguye4:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2078. Improve self-review Link peer review & self-review to derive grades

2020-11-11T03:16:13Z

Jhnguye4:

== Project Overview ==

In Expertiza, it is currently possible to check the “Allow self-review” box on the Review Strategy tab of assignment creation, and then an author will be asked to review his/her own submission in addition to the submissions of others. But as currently implemented, nothing is done with the scores on these self-reviews.

There has been a previous attempt at solving this problem, but there were several issues with that implementation:

*The formula for weighting self-reviews is not modular. It needs to be, since different instructors may want to use different formulas, so several should be supported.
*There are not enough comments in the code.
*It seems to work for only one round of review.

View documentation for previous implementation [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1984._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_&_self-review_to_derive_grades here].

=== Objectives ===

Our objectives for this project are the following:

*Display the self-review score with peer-review scores for the logged in user
*Implement a way to achieve a composite score with the combination of the self-review score and peer-review scores
*Implement a requirement for the logged in user to self-review before viewing peer-reviews
*Assure that we overcome the issues outlined for the previous implementation of this project

=== Team ===

Courtney Ripoll (ctripoll)

Jonathan Nguyen (jhnguye4)

Justin Kirschner (jkirsch)

=== Files Involved ===

'''Back-end'''

*app/controllers/grades_controller.rb
*app/helpers/grades_helper.rb
*app/models/assignment_participant.rb
*app/models/author_feedback_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/response_map.rb
*app/models/review_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/self_review_response_map.rb
*app/models/teammate_review_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/vm_question_response.rb

'''Front-end'''

*app/views/assignments/edit/_review_strategy.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant_charts.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant_title.html.erb
*app/views/grades/view_team.html.erb

'''Testing'''

*spec/models/assignment_particpant_spec.rb
*spec/controllers/grades_controller_spec.rb

=== Use Case for Self-Assessment ===

The following diagram illustrates how the self-assessment feature should work between student and instructor within Expertiza. In summary, an instructor can create an assignment and enable self-review. A student can then submit to the assignment creates by the instructor and provide a self-review. Only then can the student view all of their review scores.

[[File:Use case diagram e2078.png|750px]]

== Design Plan for Tasks ==

=== Display Self-Review Scores w/ Peer-Reviews ===

It should be possible to see self-review scores juxtaposed with peer-review scores. Design a way to show them in the regular "View Scores" page and the alternate (heat-map) view. They should be shown amidst the other reviews, but in a way that highlights them as being a different kind of review.

==== Design Plan ====

In the current implementation of Expertiza, students can view a compilation of all peer review scores for each review question and an average of those peer-reviews. For our project, we plan to add the self-review score alongside the peer-review scores for each review question. In the wire-frame below, note that for each criterion there is a column for each peer-review score and a single column for the self-review score next to the review table. Currently implemented in the system, the avg column takes an average of all the peer-review scores. For each criterion, the avg peer-review score and the composite score will be used to calculate a composite score. This will be used to determine the overall composite score for the team's reviews. Furthermore, the average composite score is displayed on the page under the average peer review score. How we plan to derive a composite score is explained in detail in the follow section [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Derive_Composite_Score Derive Composite Score].

[[File:View wireframe v2.png|700px]]

In the alternate view, our plan does not alter the current interface too much. The only addition we plan to implement is additional columns for the self-review average and for the composite score a student has received for an assignment. The information icon paired with the Final Score column will explain the derivation of the score. Likewise, there is now an additional doughnut chart providing a visual of the composite score (green) alongside the final review score (yellow).

[[File:Alternate view wireframe v2.png|950px]]

''Note: The diagrams above are wireframes. The values displayed are not be taken literally, they are for design purposes only.''

=== Derive Composite Score ===

Implement a way to combine self-review and peer-review scores to derive a composite score. The basic idea is that the authors get more points as their self-reviews get closer to the scores given by the peer reviewers. So the function should take the scores given by peers to a particular rubric criterion and the score given by the user. The result of the formula should be displayed in a conspicuous page on the score view.

The formula we use to determine a final grade from, 1) the peer reviews and 2) how closely self reviews match the peer reviews, uses a type of additive scoring rule, which computes a weighted average between team score (peer reviews) and student rating (self review). More specifically, it uses a type of mixed additive-multiplicative scoring rule, which multiplies student score (self review) by a function of the team score (peer reviews), and adds its weighted version to the weighted peer review score. This is also known as 'assessment by adjustment'. The formula is a practical scoring rule for additive scoring with unsigned percentages (grades from 0%-100%).

The pseudo-code for a function that implements the formula is as follows:
function(avg_peer_rev_score, self_rev_score, w)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(SELF)

where:
SELF = avg_peer_review_score * (1 - (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score))
and where:
avg_peer_review_score is simply the mechanism already existing in Expertiza for assigning a grade from peer review scores.

and where:
w - weight - (0 <= w <= 1) is the inverse proportion of how much of the final grade is determined by the closeness of the self review to the average of the peer reviews (w is the proportion of the grade to be determined by the original grade determination: the peer review scores).

An example:
* The average peer review score is 4/5, the self review score is 5/5.
* The instructor chooses w to equal 0.95, so that 5% of the grade is determined from the deviation of the self review from the peer reviews.
The final grade, instead of being the peer review score of 4/5 ('''80%''') is now:
0.95*(4/5) + 0.05*(4/5*(1-|4/5-5/5|/(4/5))) = '''79%'''.
If the instructor chose w to equal 0.85 (instead of 0.95), the grade is '''77%''' (instead of 79%) because deviation from peer reviews is a larger weighted value of the final grade.

The above is a basic version of the grading formula. It is basic in that it only allows deviations of the self review scores from the peer review scores to result in a decrease in the final grade ''and'' a deviation will ''always'' result in a decrease of the final grade. We propose another parameter to the formula, l - leniency, as another way (in addition to w - weight) for the instructor to modularly determine the final grade for an assignment. The parameter l - leniency - can determine a threshold by which the final grade will account/adjust for self reviews' deviations from peer reviews only when the deviation reaches this threshold (measured in percentage deviation from the average peer review). If the difference does not meet the threshold, no penalty will be subtracted from the peer review. In addition, if the difference does not meet the threshold (the self review score is sufficiently close to the peer review scores), the instructor can choose to add points to final grade based on the magnitude of the difference. Since the formula is a mixed additive-multiplicative scoring rule (mentioned above), the instructor needs to simply pick l - leniency - as a percentage (similar to the functionality of w).

To recap: w should be chosen based on the instructor's desired percentage (w) ''of the final grade'' to be determined from peer reviews and, conversely, the instructor's desired percentage (1-w) ''of the final grade'' to be determined by the extent to which self reviews deviate from peer reviews. In addition, l - leniency, should be chosen based on the instructor's desired percentage ''of the deviation of self review from peer review'' that could result in no grade deduction from the deviation if the deviation is sufficiently small (or even a grade increase if the instructor wants to increase the score of individuals with a small deviation).

The following is pseudo-code for if an instructor wishes to not subtract from the final grade if the deviation is sufficiently small. Notice that the leniency condition, the instructor's desired percentage ''of the deviation of self review from peer review'', is naturally part of the grading formula in SELF:
if |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score <= l(leniency)
grade = avg_peer_review_score
else
run formula

In addition. instead of assigning a final grade equal to the avg_peer_review_score if the leniency condition is met, the grade can be adjusted (increased) if the instructor wishes to do so, since the self review is sufficiently close (determined by l) to the peer reviews. The formula for determining the final grade would thus add the small extent of deviation to the final grade rather than subtracting it (in SELF, 1 - ..., is changed to 1 + ...):
function(avg_peer_rev_score, self_rev_score, w)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(SELF)

where:
SELF = avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''+''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score))

In this case, the pseudo-code is:
if |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score <= l(leniency)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''+''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score)))
else
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''-''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score)))

Using the previous example (average peer review score is 4/5, self review score is 5/5, w = 0.95), the self review score (5/5) differs by 25% of the peer review score (4/5). In other words, |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score = 1/4 = 25%. Based on l - leniency, the instructor can decide:

:1. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently large to warrant penalizing the final grade by (1-w)*(SELF) (so that the final grade is '''79%''', instead of 80%).

:2. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently small to warrant keeping the final grade as grade = avg_peer_review_score, with no penalty for the deviation (so that the grade is '''80%''')

:3. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently small to warrant increasing the final grade by (1-w)*(SELF), where the SELF formula contains a 1 + ..., instead of a 1 - ... (so that the grade is '''81%''')

==== Implementation Plan ====

In order to incorporate the combined score into grading, we will change the logic in grades_controller.rb, which implements the grading formula. We will remove most of the code from the previous implementation since the formula/method used is unsatisfactory. '''With the new grading formula, the grades_controller can assign a final grade by following these steps:'''

:1. We can obtain the peer review ratings and the score/grade derived from them by calling scores(), which then calls compute_assignment_score(), both from the assignment_participant.rb model. In order to compute the assignment score, compute_assignment_score() calls another method named get_assessments_for(), which is located in review_questionnare.rb model.

:2. The get_assessments_for() method will call the reviews() method, also located in assignment_participant.rb.

:3. Finally, the reviews() method will get the scores by simply calling the get_assessments_for() method located in the response_map.rb model.

:4. Once the scores have been retrieved by using the various model methods, the controller can use the scores to calculated a final grade by using the formula. This grade is then passed to the view.

Below is a flow diagram for how grades_controller.rb, which implements the grading formula (as mentioned in the first step) and presents the grade in the view (top of the diagram). Note: The self-review scores are obtained by using the true parameter in all the methods calls (as shown in the diagram), whereas the peer-review scores are retrieved similarly but omitting this parameter.

[[File:E1926_code_flow.png]]

=== Implement Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ===

There would be no challenge in giving the same self-review scores as the peer reviewers gave if the authors could see peer-review scores before they submitted their self-reviews. The user should be required to submit their self-evaluation(s) before seeing the results of their peer evaluations.

==== Implementation Plan ====

By being able to self review before peer review, it allows the author of the assignment to have an unbiased opinion on the quality of work they are submitting. When the judgement of their work is not influenced by others who have given feedback, they are able to get a clearer view of the strengths and weaknesses of their assignment. Self reviews before peer reviews can also be more beneficial to the user as it can show if the user has the correct or wrong approach to their solution compared to their peers.

In the current implementation of self review, the user is able to see the peer reviews before they have made their own self review. The reason that this is occurring is due to the fact that when the user goes to see their scores, the page is not checking that a self review has been submitted. In order to fix this issue, we will add a boolean parameter to self review and pass it to viewing pages where it is called. When a user is at the student tasks view, the "Your scores" link will be disabled if the user has not filled out their self review. If the user has filled out their self review, then he/she will be redirected to the [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Display_Self-Review_Scores_w.2F_Peer-Reviews Display Self-Review Scores with Peer-Reviews] page.

Below is a control flow diagram for how a student will be able to view their peer and self review score.

[[File:Control_Flow_SelfReview.png]]

== Implementation of Design Plan ==
=== Display Self-Review Scores w/ Peer-Reviews ===
[[File:selfreviews14.png]]
[[File:selfreviews15.png]]
[[File:selfreviews16.png]]
[[File:selfreviews9.png]]
[[File:selfreviews10.png]]
[[File:selfreviews11.png]]
[[File:selfreviews12.png]]
[[File:selfreviews17.png]]
[[File:selfreviews18.png]]

=== Derive Composite Score ===
[[File:selfreviews1.png]]
[[File:selfreviews2.png]]
[[File:selfreviews3.png]]
[[File:selfreviews4.png]]
[[File:selfreviews13.png]]
=== Implement Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ===
[[File:selfreviews5.png]]
[[File:selfreviews6.png]]
[[File:selfreviews7.png]]
[[File:selfreviews8.png]]
== Test Plan ==

Our project will utilize various testing techniques. These methods of testing involve manual testing (black box testing) and RSpec testing (white box testing).

=== Manual Testing ===

'''Credentials'''

*username: ''instructor6'', password: ''password''
*username: ''student3000'', password: ''password''
*username: ''student4000'', password: ''password''

The steps outlined for manual testing will become clearer upon implementation, but the proposed plan is the following:

==== Prerequisite Steps ====

:1. Log in to the development instance of Expertiza as an ''instructor6''
:2. Create an assignment that allows for self-reviews. To allow for self-reviews, check the box "Allow Self-Reviews" in the Review Strategy tab.
::2.1. Make sure the submission deadline is after the current date and time
::2.2. Likewise, the review deadline should then be greater than the submission deadline
:3. Add ''student3000'' and ''student4000'' to the newly created assignment (i.e. "Test Assignment")

==== Must Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ====

This test will assure that the logged in user cannot view their peer-reviews for a given assignment unless they have performed a self-review.

:1. Sign as ''student3000''
::1.1. Submit any file or link to the new Test Assignment
:2. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::2.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:3. Log in as ''student3000''
:4. Attempt to view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores" within the Test Assignment. This button should be disabled
:5. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::5.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change back the submission date to be in the future
:6. Log in as ''student3000'
::6.1. Perform a self-review
:7. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::7.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:8. Log in as ''student3000'
::8.1. Go view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores". This button should now be enabled

==== Viewing Self Review Score Juxtaposed with Peer Review Scores ====

This test confirms that the the students self-review scores are displayed with peer-review scores. It additionally confirms that self-review scores are considered in the review grading with the calculation of a composite score.

:1. Sign as ''student3000''
::1.1. Submit any file or link to the new Test Assignment
::1.2. Perform a self-review
:2. Repeat step 1 ''student4000''
:3. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::3.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:4. Log back in as ''student4000''
::4.1. Perform a peer-review on the submission from ''student3000''
:5. Log in as ''student3000''
:6. Go view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores".
::6.1. Assure that there is a column for self-review scores
::6.2. Confirm there is a composite score calculation underneath the average peer review score.
:7. Go back to the assignment view. Click "Alternate View"
::7.1. Confirm that there is a new column illustrating the self-review average
::7.2. Confirm that there is a column in the grades table displaying composite score (Final score)
::7.3. Check is there is a doughnut chart displaying the composite score (Final score)

=== RSpec Testing ===

We plan to implement new RSpec tests to verify our implementations of the composite score calculation and the requirement to self-review first. Once written, we will be able to go more in-depth on the details of our testing.

==== Test Composite Score Derivation ====

TBD

==== Test Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ====

TBD

== Relevant Links ==

'''Our repository''': https://github.com/jhnguye4/expertiza/tree/beta

'''Pull request''': https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1831

'''Video demo''': Does not exist yet

== References ==

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Vossen/publication/333022439_SCORING_MODELS_FOR_PEER_ASSESSMENT_IN_TEAM-BASED_LEARNING_PROJECTS/links/5cd6d6b4299bf14d958a4b99/SCORING-MODELS-FOR-PEER-ASSESSMENT-IN-TEAM-BASED-LEARNING-PROJECTS.pdf Scoring models for peer assessment in team-based learning projects]

[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1611 E1984 Pull Request]

[https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1984._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_&_self-review_to_derive_grades E1984 wiki]

File:Selfreviews18.png

2020-11-11T03:15:42Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews17.png

2020-11-11T03:15:29Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews16.png

2020-11-11T03:15:16Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews15.png

2020-11-11T03:15:05Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews14.png

2020-11-11T03:14:53Z

Jhnguye4:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2078. Improve self-review Link peer review & self-review to derive grades

2020-11-11T02:40:15Z

Jhnguye4:

== Project Overview ==

In Expertiza, it is currently possible to check the “Allow self-review” box on the Review Strategy tab of assignment creation, and then an author will be asked to review his/her own submission in addition to the submissions of others. But as currently implemented, nothing is done with the scores on these self-reviews.

There has been a previous attempt at solving this problem, but there were several issues with that implementation:

*The formula for weighting self-reviews is not modular. It needs to be, since different instructors may want to use different formulas, so several should be supported.
*There are not enough comments in the code.
*It seems to work for only one round of review.

View documentation for previous implementation [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1984._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_&_self-review_to_derive_grades here].

=== Objectives ===

Our objectives for this project are the following:

*Display the self-review score with peer-review scores for the logged in user
*Implement a way to achieve a composite score with the combination of the self-review score and peer-review scores
*Implement a requirement for the logged in user to self-review before viewing peer-reviews
*Assure that we overcome the issues outlined for the previous implementation of this project

=== Team ===

Courtney Ripoll (ctripoll)

Jonathan Nguyen (jhnguye4)

Justin Kirschner (jkirsch)

=== Files Involved ===

'''Back-end'''

*app/controllers/grades_controller.rb
*app/helpers/grades_helper.rb
*app/models/assignment_participant.rb
*app/models/author_feedback_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/response_map.rb
*app/models/review_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/self_review_response_map.rb
*app/models/teammate_review_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/vm_question_response.rb

'''Front-end'''

*app/views/assignments/edit/_review_strategy.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant_charts.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant_title.html.erb
*app/views/grades/view_team.html.erb

'''Testing'''

*spec/models/assignment_particpant_spec.rb
*spec/controllers/grades_controller_spec.rb

=== Use Case for Self-Assessment ===

The following diagram illustrates how the self-assessment feature should work between student and instructor within Expertiza. In summary, an instructor can create an assignment and enable self-review. A student can then submit to the assignment creates by the instructor and provide a self-review. Only then can the student view all of their review scores.

[[File:Use case diagram e2078.png|750px]]

== Design Plan for Tasks ==

=== Display Self-Review Scores w/ Peer-Reviews ===

It should be possible to see self-review scores juxtaposed with peer-review scores. Design a way to show them in the regular "View Scores" page and the alternate (heat-map) view. They should be shown amidst the other reviews, but in a way that highlights them as being a different kind of review.

==== Design Plan ====

In the current implementation of Expertiza, students can view a compilation of all peer review scores for each review question and an average of those peer-reviews. For our project, we plan to add the self-review score alongside the peer-review scores for each review question. In the wire-frame below, note that for each criterion there is a column for each peer-review score and a single column for the self-review score next to the review table. Currently implemented in the system, the avg column takes an average of all the peer-review scores. For each criterion, the avg peer-review score and the composite score will be used to calculate a composite score. This will be used to determine the overall composite score for the team's reviews. Furthermore, the average composite score is displayed on the page under the average peer review score. How we plan to derive a composite score is explained in detail in the follow section [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Derive_Composite_Score Derive Composite Score].

[[File:View wireframe v2.png|700px]]

In the alternate view, our plan does not alter the current interface too much. The only addition we plan to implement is additional columns for the self-review average and for the composite score a student has received for an assignment. The information icon paired with the Final Score column will explain the derivation of the score. Likewise, there is now an additional doughnut chart providing a visual of the composite score (green) alongside the final review score (yellow).

[[File:Alternate view wireframe v2.png|950px]]

''Note: The diagrams above are wireframes. The values displayed are not be taken literally, they are for design purposes only.''

=== Derive Composite Score ===

Implement a way to combine self-review and peer-review scores to derive a composite score. The basic idea is that the authors get more points as their self-reviews get closer to the scores given by the peer reviewers. So the function should take the scores given by peers to a particular rubric criterion and the score given by the user. The result of the formula should be displayed in a conspicuous page on the score view.

The formula we use to determine a final grade from, 1) the peer reviews and 2) how closely self reviews match the peer reviews, uses a type of additive scoring rule, which computes a weighted average between team score (peer reviews) and student rating (self review). More specifically, it uses a type of mixed additive-multiplicative scoring rule, which multiplies student score (self review) by a function of the team score (peer reviews), and adds its weighted version to the weighted peer review score. This is also known as 'assessment by adjustment'. The formula is a practical scoring rule for additive scoring with unsigned percentages (grades from 0%-100%).

The pseudo-code for a function that implements the formula is as follows:
function(avg_peer_rev_score, self_rev_score, w)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(SELF)

where:
SELF = avg_peer_review_score * (1 - (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score))
and where:
avg_peer_review_score is simply the mechanism already existing in Expertiza for assigning a grade from peer review scores.

and where:
w - weight - (0 <= w <= 1) is the inverse proportion of how much of the final grade is determined by the closeness of the self review to the average of the peer reviews (w is the proportion of the grade to be determined by the original grade determination: the peer review scores).

An example:
* The average peer review score is 4/5, the self review score is 5/5.
* The instructor chooses w to equal 0.95, so that 5% of the grade is determined from the deviation of the self review from the peer reviews.
The final grade, instead of being the peer review score of 4/5 ('''80%''') is now:
0.95*(4/5) + 0.05*(4/5*(1-|4/5-5/5|/(4/5))) = '''79%'''.
If the instructor chose w to equal 0.85 (instead of 0.95), the grade is '''77%''' (instead of 79%) because deviation from peer reviews is a larger weighted value of the final grade.

The above is a basic version of the grading formula. It is basic in that it only allows deviations of the self review scores from the peer review scores to result in a decrease in the final grade ''and'' a deviation will ''always'' result in a decrease of the final grade. We propose another parameter to the formula, l - leniency, as another way (in addition to w - weight) for the instructor to modularly determine the final grade for an assignment. The parameter l - leniency - can determine a threshold by which the final grade will account/adjust for self reviews' deviations from peer reviews only when the deviation reaches this threshold (measured in percentage deviation from the average peer review). If the difference does not meet the threshold, no penalty will be subtracted from the peer review. In addition, if the difference does not meet the threshold (the self review score is sufficiently close to the peer review scores), the instructor can choose to add points to final grade based on the magnitude of the difference. Since the formula is a mixed additive-multiplicative scoring rule (mentioned above), the instructor needs to simply pick l - leniency - as a percentage (similar to the functionality of w).

To recap: w should be chosen based on the instructor's desired percentage (w) ''of the final grade'' to be determined from peer reviews and, conversely, the instructor's desired percentage (1-w) ''of the final grade'' to be determined by the extent to which self reviews deviate from peer reviews. In addition, l - leniency, should be chosen based on the instructor's desired percentage ''of the deviation of self review from peer review'' that could result in no grade deduction from the deviation if the deviation is sufficiently small (or even a grade increase if the instructor wants to increase the score of individuals with a small deviation).

The following is pseudo-code for if an instructor wishes to not subtract from the final grade if the deviation is sufficiently small. Notice that the leniency condition, the instructor's desired percentage ''of the deviation of self review from peer review'', is naturally part of the grading formula in SELF:
if |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score <= l(leniency)
grade = avg_peer_review_score
else
run formula

In addition. instead of assigning a final grade equal to the avg_peer_review_score if the leniency condition is met, the grade can be adjusted (increased) if the instructor wishes to do so, since the self review is sufficiently close (determined by l) to the peer reviews. The formula for determining the final grade would thus add the small extent of deviation to the final grade rather than subtracting it (in SELF, 1 - ..., is changed to 1 + ...):
function(avg_peer_rev_score, self_rev_score, w)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(SELF)

where:
SELF = avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''+''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score))

In this case, the pseudo-code is:
if |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score <= l(leniency)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''+''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score)))
else
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''-''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score)))

Using the previous example (average peer review score is 4/5, self review score is 5/5, w = 0.95), the self review score (5/5) differs by 25% of the peer review score (4/5). In other words, |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score = 1/4 = 25%. Based on l - leniency, the instructor can decide:

:1. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently large to warrant penalizing the final grade by (1-w)*(SELF) (so that the final grade is '''79%''', instead of 80%).

:2. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently small to warrant keeping the final grade as grade = avg_peer_review_score, with no penalty for the deviation (so that the grade is '''80%''')

:3. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently small to warrant increasing the final grade by (1-w)*(SELF), where the SELF formula contains a 1 + ..., instead of a 1 - ... (so that the grade is '''81%''')

==== Implementation Plan ====

In order to incorporate the combined score into grading, we will change the logic in grades_controller.rb, which implements the grading formula. We will remove most of the code from the previous implementation since the formula/method used is unsatisfactory. '''With the new grading formula, the grades_controller can assign a final grade by following these steps:'''

:1. We can obtain the peer review ratings and the score/grade derived from them by calling scores(), which then calls compute_assignment_score(), both from the assignment_participant.rb model. In order to compute the assignment score, compute_assignment_score() calls another method named get_assessments_for(), which is located in review_questionnare.rb model.

:2. The get_assessments_for() method will call the reviews() method, also located in assignment_participant.rb.

:3. Finally, the reviews() method will get the scores by simply calling the get_assessments_for() method located in the response_map.rb model.

:4. Once the scores have been retrieved by using the various model methods, the controller can use the scores to calculated a final grade by using the formula. This grade is then passed to the view.

Below is a flow diagram for how grades_controller.rb, which implements the grading formula (as mentioned in the first step) and presents the grade in the view (top of the diagram). Note: The self-review scores are obtained by using the true parameter in all the methods calls (as shown in the diagram), whereas the peer-review scores are retrieved similarly but omitting this parameter.

[[File:E1926_code_flow.png]]

=== Implement Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ===

There would be no challenge in giving the same self-review scores as the peer reviewers gave if the authors could see peer-review scores before they submitted their self-reviews. The user should be required to submit their self-evaluation(s) before seeing the results of their peer evaluations.

==== Implementation Plan ====

By being able to self review before peer review, it allows the author of the assignment to have an unbiased opinion on the quality of work they are submitting. When the judgement of their work is not influenced by others who have given feedback, they are able to get a clearer view of the strengths and weaknesses of their assignment. Self reviews before peer reviews can also be more beneficial to the user as it can show if the user has the correct or wrong approach to their solution compared to their peers.

In the current implementation of self review, the user is able to see the peer reviews before they have made their own self review. The reason that this is occurring is due to the fact that when the user goes to see their scores, the page is not checking that a self review has been submitted. In order to fix this issue, we will add a boolean parameter to self review and pass it to viewing pages where it is called. When a user is at the student tasks view, the "Your scores" link will be disabled if the user has not filled out their self review. If the user has filled out their self review, then he/she will be redirected to the [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Display_Self-Review_Scores_w.2F_Peer-Reviews Display Self-Review Scores with Peer-Reviews] page.

Below is a control flow diagram for how a student will be able to view their peer and self review score.

[[File:Control_Flow_SelfReview.png]]

== Implementation of Design Plan ==
=== Display Self-Review Scores w/ Peer-Reviews ===
[[File:selfreviews9.png]]
[[File:selfreviews10.png]]
[[File:selfreviews11.png]]
[[File:selfreviews12.png]]

=== Derive Composite Score ===
[[File:selfreviews1.png]]
[[File:selfreviews2.png]]
[[File:selfreviews3.png]]
[[File:selfreviews4.png]]
[[File:selfreviews13.png]]
=== Implement Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ===
[[File:selfreviews5.png]]
[[File:selfreviews6.png]]
[[File:selfreviews7.png]]
[[File:selfreviews8.png]]
== Test Plan ==

Our project will utilize various testing techniques. These methods of testing involve manual testing (black box testing) and RSpec testing (white box testing).

=== Manual Testing ===

'''Credentials'''

*username: ''instructor6'', password: ''password''
*username: ''student3000'', password: ''password''
*username: ''student4000'', password: ''password''

The steps outlined for manual testing will become clearer upon implementation, but the proposed plan is the following:

==== Prerequisite Steps ====

:1. Log in to the development instance of Expertiza as an ''instructor6''
:2. Create an assignment that allows for self-reviews. To allow for self-reviews, check the box "Allow Self-Reviews" in the Review Strategy tab.
::2.1. Make sure the submission deadline is after the current date and time
::2.2. Likewise, the review deadline should then be greater than the submission deadline
:3. Add ''student3000'' and ''student4000'' to the newly created assignment (i.e. "Test Assignment")

==== Must Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ====

This test will assure that the logged in user cannot view their peer-reviews for a given assignment unless they have performed a self-review.

:1. Sign as ''student3000''
::1.1. Submit any file or link to the new Test Assignment
:2. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::2.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:3. Log in as ''student3000''
:4. Attempt to view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores" within the Test Assignment. This button should be disabled
:5. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::5.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change back the submission date to be in the future
:6. Log in as ''student3000'
::6.1. Perform a self-review
:7. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::7.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:8. Log in as ''student3000'
::8.1. Go view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores". This button should now be enabled

==== Viewing Self Review Score Juxtaposed with Peer Review Scores ====

This test confirms that the the students self-review scores are displayed with peer-review scores. It additionally confirms that self-review scores are considered in the review grading with the calculation of a composite score.

:1. Sign as ''student3000''
::1.1. Submit any file or link to the new Test Assignment
::1.2. Perform a self-review
:2. Repeat step 1 ''student4000''
:3. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::3.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:4. Log back in as ''student4000''
::4.1. Perform a peer-review on the submission from ''student3000''
:5. Log in as ''student3000''
:6. Go view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores".
::6.1. Assure that there is a column for self-review scores
::6.2. Confirm there is a composite score calculation underneath the average peer review score.
:7. Go back to the assignment view. Click "Alternate View"
::7.1. Confirm that there is a new column illustrating the self-review average
::7.2. Confirm that there is a column in the grades table displaying composite score (Final score)
::7.3. Check is there is a doughnut chart displaying the composite score (Final score)

=== RSpec Testing ===

We plan to implement new RSpec tests to verify our implementations of the composite score calculation and the requirement to self-review first. Once written, we will be able to go more in-depth on the details of our testing.

==== Test Composite Score Derivation ====

TBD

==== Test Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ====

TBD

== Relevant Links ==

'''Our repository''': https://github.com/jhnguye4/expertiza/tree/beta

'''Pull request''': https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1831

'''Video demo''': Does not exist yet

== References ==

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Vossen/publication/333022439_SCORING_MODELS_FOR_PEER_ASSESSMENT_IN_TEAM-BASED_LEARNING_PROJECTS/links/5cd6d6b4299bf14d958a4b99/SCORING-MODELS-FOR-PEER-ASSESSMENT-IN-TEAM-BASED-LEARNING-PROJECTS.pdf Scoring models for peer assessment in team-based learning projects]

[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1611 E1984 Pull Request]

[https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1984._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_&_self-review_to_derive_grades E1984 wiki]

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2078. Improve self-review Link peer review & self-review to derive grades

2020-11-11T01:55:09Z

Jhnguye4:

== Project Overview ==

In Expertiza, it is currently possible to check the “Allow self-review” box on the Review Strategy tab of assignment creation, and then an author will be asked to review his/her own submission in addition to the submissions of others. But as currently implemented, nothing is done with the scores on these self-reviews.

There has been a previous attempt at solving this problem, but there were several issues with that implementation:

*The formula for weighting self-reviews is not modular. It needs to be, since different instructors may want to use different formulas, so several should be supported.
*There are not enough comments in the code.
*It seems to work for only one round of review.

View documentation for previous implementation [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1984._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_&_self-review_to_derive_grades here].

=== Objectives ===

Our objectives for this project are the following:

*Display the self-review score with peer-review scores for the logged in user
*Implement a way to achieve a composite score with the combination of the self-review score and peer-review scores
*Implement a requirement for the logged in user to self-review before viewing peer-reviews
*Assure that we overcome the issues outlined for the previous implementation of this project

=== Team ===

Courtney Ripoll (ctripoll)

Jonathan Nguyen (jhnguye4)

Justin Kirschner (jkirsch)

=== Files Involved ===

'''Back-end'''

*app/controllers/grades_controller.rb
*app/helpers/grades_helper.rb
*app/models/assignment_participant.rb
*app/models/author_feedback_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/response_map.rb
*app/models/review_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/self_review_response_map.rb
*app/models/teammate_review_questionnaire.rb
*app/models/vm_question_response.rb

'''Front-end'''

*app/views/assignments/edit/_review_strategy.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant_charts.html.erb
*app/views/grades/_participant_title.html.erb
*app/views/grades/view_team.html.erb

'''Testing'''

*spec/models/assignment_particpant_spec.rb
*spec/controllers/grades_controller_spec.rb

=== Use Case for Self-Assessment ===

The following diagram illustrates how the self-assessment feature should work between student and instructor within Expertiza. In summary, an instructor can create an assignment and enable self-review. A student can then submit to the assignment creates by the instructor and provide a self-review. Only then can the student view all of their review scores.

[[File:Use case diagram e2078.png|750px]]

== Design Plan for Tasks ==

=== Display Self-Review Scores w/ Peer-Reviews ===

It should be possible to see self-review scores juxtaposed with peer-review scores. Design a way to show them in the regular "View Scores" page and the alternate (heat-map) view. They should be shown amidst the other reviews, but in a way that highlights them as being a different kind of review.

==== Design Plan ====

In the current implementation of Expertiza, students can view a compilation of all peer review scores for each review question and an average of those peer-reviews. For our project, we plan to add the self-review score alongside the peer-review scores for each review question. In the wire-frame below, note that for each criterion there is a column for each peer-review score and a single column for the self-review score next to the review table. Currently implemented in the system, the avg column takes an average of all the peer-review scores. For each criterion, the avg peer-review score and the composite score will be used to calculate a composite score. This will be used to determine the overall composite score for the team's reviews. Furthermore, the average composite score is displayed on the page under the average peer review score. How we plan to derive a composite score is explained in detail in the follow section [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Derive_Composite_Score Derive Composite Score].

[[File:View wireframe v2.png|700px]]

In the alternate view, our plan does not alter the current interface too much. The only addition we plan to implement is additional columns for the self-review average and for the composite score a student has received for an assignment. The information icon paired with the Final Score column will explain the derivation of the score. Likewise, there is now an additional doughnut chart providing a visual of the composite score (green) alongside the final review score (yellow).

[[File:Alternate view wireframe v2.png|950px]]

''Note: The diagrams above are wireframes. The values displayed are not be taken literally, they are for design purposes only.''

=== Derive Composite Score ===

Implement a way to combine self-review and peer-review scores to derive a composite score. The basic idea is that the authors get more points as their self-reviews get closer to the scores given by the peer reviewers. So the function should take the scores given by peers to a particular rubric criterion and the score given by the user. The result of the formula should be displayed in a conspicuous page on the score view.

The formula we use to determine a final grade from, 1) the peer reviews and 2) how closely self reviews match the peer reviews, uses a type of additive scoring rule, which computes a weighted average between team score (peer reviews) and student rating (self review). More specifically, it uses a type of mixed additive-multiplicative scoring rule, which multiplies student score (self review) by a function of the team score (peer reviews), and adds its weighted version to the weighted peer review score. This is also known as 'assessment by adjustment'. The formula is a practical scoring rule for additive scoring with unsigned percentages (grades from 0%-100%).

The pseudo-code for a function that implements the formula is as follows:
function(avg_peer_rev_score, self_rev_score, w)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(SELF)

where:
SELF = avg_peer_review_score * (1 - (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score))
and where:
avg_peer_review_score is simply the mechanism already existing in Expertiza for assigning a grade from peer review scores.

and where:
w - weight - (0 <= w <= 1) is the inverse proportion of how much of the final grade is determined by the closeness of the self review to the average of the peer reviews (w is the proportion of the grade to be determined by the original grade determination: the peer review scores).

An example:
* The average peer review score is 4/5, the self review score is 5/5.
* The instructor chooses w to equal 0.95, so that 5% of the grade is determined from the deviation of the self review from the peer reviews.
The final grade, instead of being the peer review score of 4/5 ('''80%''') is now:
0.95*(4/5) + 0.05*(4/5*(1-|4/5-5/5|/(4/5))) = '''79%'''.
If the instructor chose w to equal 0.85 (instead of 0.95), the grade is '''77%''' (instead of 79%) because deviation from peer reviews is a larger weighted value of the final grade.

The above is a basic version of the grading formula. It is basic in that it only allows deviations of the self review scores from the peer review scores to result in a decrease in the final grade ''and'' a deviation will ''always'' result in a decrease of the final grade. We propose another parameter to the formula, l - leniency, as another way (in addition to w - weight) for the instructor to modularly determine the final grade for an assignment. The parameter l - leniency - can determine a threshold by which the final grade will account/adjust for self reviews' deviations from peer reviews only when the deviation reaches this threshold (measured in percentage deviation from the average peer review). If the difference does not meet the threshold, no penalty will be subtracted from the peer review. In addition, if the difference does not meet the threshold (the self review score is sufficiently close to the peer review scores), the instructor can choose to add points to final grade based on the magnitude of the difference. Since the formula is a mixed additive-multiplicative scoring rule (mentioned above), the instructor needs to simply pick l - leniency - as a percentage (similar to the functionality of w).

To recap: w should be chosen based on the instructor's desired percentage (w) ''of the final grade'' to be determined from peer reviews and, conversely, the instructor's desired percentage (1-w) ''of the final grade'' to be determined by the extent to which self reviews deviate from peer reviews. In addition, l - leniency, should be chosen based on the instructor's desired percentage ''of the deviation of self review from peer review'' that could result in no grade deduction from the deviation if the deviation is sufficiently small (or even a grade increase if the instructor wants to increase the score of individuals with a small deviation).

The following is pseudo-code for if an instructor wishes to not subtract from the final grade if the deviation is sufficiently small. Notice that the leniency condition, the instructor's desired percentage ''of the deviation of self review from peer review'', is naturally part of the grading formula in SELF:
if |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score <= l(leniency)
grade = avg_peer_review_score
else
run formula

In addition. instead of assigning a final grade equal to the avg_peer_review_score if the leniency condition is met, the grade can be adjusted (increased) if the instructor wishes to do so, since the self review is sufficiently close (determined by l) to the peer reviews. The formula for determining the final grade would thus add the small extent of deviation to the final grade rather than subtracting it (in SELF, 1 - ..., is changed to 1 + ...):
function(avg_peer_rev_score, self_rev_score, w)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(SELF)

where:
SELF = avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''+''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score))

In this case, the pseudo-code is:
if |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score <= l(leniency)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''+''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score)))
else
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''-''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score)))

Using the previous example (average peer review score is 4/5, self review score is 5/5, w = 0.95), the self review score (5/5) differs by 25% of the peer review score (4/5). In other words, |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score = 1/4 = 25%. Based on l - leniency, the instructor can decide:

:1. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently large to warrant penalizing the final grade by (1-w)*(SELF) (so that the final grade is '''79%''', instead of 80%).

:2. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently small to warrant keeping the final grade as grade = avg_peer_review_score, with no penalty for the deviation (so that the grade is '''80%''')

:3. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently small to warrant increasing the final grade by (1-w)*(SELF), where the SELF formula contains a 1 + ..., instead of a 1 - ... (so that the grade is '''81%''')

==== Implementation Plan ====

In order to incorporate the combined score into grading, we will change the logic in grades_controller.rb, which implements the grading formula. We will remove most of the code from the previous implementation since the formula/method used is unsatisfactory. '''With the new grading formula, the grades_controller can assign a final grade by following these steps:'''

:1. We can obtain the peer review ratings and the score/grade derived from them by calling scores(), which then calls compute_assignment_score(), both from the assignment_participant.rb model. In order to compute the assignment score, compute_assignment_score() calls another method named get_assessments_for(), which is located in review_questionnare.rb model.

:2. The get_assessments_for() method will call the reviews() method, also located in assignment_participant.rb.

:3. Finally, the reviews() method will get the scores by simply calling the get_assessments_for() method located in the response_map.rb model.

:4. Once the scores have been retrieved by using the various model methods, the controller can use the scores to calculated a final grade by using the formula. This grade is then passed to the view.

Below is a flow diagram for how grades_controller.rb, which implements the grading formula (as mentioned in the first step) and presents the grade in the view (top of the diagram). Note: The self-review scores are obtained by using the true parameter in all the methods calls (as shown in the diagram), whereas the peer-review scores are retrieved similarly but omitting this parameter.

[[File:E1926_code_flow.png]]

=== Implement Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ===

There would be no challenge in giving the same self-review scores as the peer reviewers gave if the authors could see peer-review scores before they submitted their self-reviews. The user should be required to submit their self-evaluation(s) before seeing the results of their peer evaluations.

==== Implementation Plan ====

By being able to self review before peer review, it allows the author of the assignment to have an unbiased opinion on the quality of work they are submitting. When the judgement of their work is not influenced by others who have given feedback, they are able to get a clearer view of the strengths and weaknesses of their assignment. Self reviews before peer reviews can also be more beneficial to the user as it can show if the user has the correct or wrong approach to their solution compared to their peers.

In the current implementation of self review, the user is able to see the peer reviews before they have made their own self review. The reason that this is occurring is due to the fact that when the user goes to see their scores, the page is not checking that a self review has been submitted. In order to fix this issue, we will add a boolean parameter to self review and pass it to viewing pages where it is called. When a user is at the student tasks view, the "Your scores" link will be disabled if the user has not filled out their self review. If the user has filled out their self review, then he/she will be redirected to the [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Display_Self-Review_Scores_w.2F_Peer-Reviews Display Self-Review Scores with Peer-Reviews] page.

Below is a control flow diagram for how a student will be able to view their peer and self review score.

[[File:Control_Flow_SelfReview.png]]

== Implementation of Design Plan ==
=== Display Self-Review Scores w/ Peer-Reviews ===
[[File:selfreviews9.png]]
[[File:selfreviews10.png]]
[[File:selfreviews11.png]]
[[File:selfreviews12.png]]
[[File:selfreviews13.png]]
=== Derive Composite Score ===
[[File:selfreviews1.png]]
[[File:selfreviews2.png]]
[[File:selfreviews3.png]]
[[File:selfreviews4.png]]
=== Implement Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ===
[[File:selfreviews5.png]]
[[File:selfreviews6.png]]
[[File:selfreviews7.png]]
[[File:selfreviews8.png]]
== Test Plan ==

Our project will utilize various testing techniques. These methods of testing involve manual testing (black box testing) and RSpec testing (white box testing).

=== Manual Testing ===

'''Credentials'''

*username: ''instructor6'', password: ''password''
*username: ''student3000'', password: ''password''
*username: ''student4000'', password: ''password''

The steps outlined for manual testing will become clearer upon implementation, but the proposed plan is the following:

==== Prerequisite Steps ====

:1. Log in to the development instance of Expertiza as an ''instructor6''
:2. Create an assignment that allows for self-reviews. To allow for self-reviews, check the box "Allow Self-Reviews" in the Review Strategy tab.
::2.1. Make sure the submission deadline is after the current date and time
::2.2. Likewise, the review deadline should then be greater than the submission deadline
:3. Add ''student3000'' and ''student4000'' to the newly created assignment (i.e. "Test Assignment")

==== Must Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ====

This test will assure that the logged in user cannot view their peer-reviews for a given assignment unless they have performed a self-review.

:1. Sign as ''student3000''
::1.1. Submit any file or link to the new Test Assignment
:2. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::2.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:3. Log in as ''student3000''
:4. Attempt to view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores" within the Test Assignment. This button should be disabled
:5. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::5.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change back the submission date to be in the future
:6. Log in as ''student3000'
::6.1. Perform a self-review
:7. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::7.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:8. Log in as ''student3000'
::8.1. Go view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores". This button should now be enabled

==== Viewing Self Review Score Juxtaposed with Peer Review Scores ====

This test confirms that the the students self-review scores are displayed with peer-review scores. It additionally confirms that self-review scores are considered in the review grading with the calculation of a composite score.

:1. Sign as ''student3000''
::1.1. Submit any file or link to the new Test Assignment
::1.2. Perform a self-review
:2. Repeat step 1 ''student4000''
:3. Log back in as the ''instructor6''
::3.1. Edit the Test Assignment to change the submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:4. Log back in as ''student4000''
::4.1. Perform a peer-review on the submission from ''student3000''
:5. Log in as ''student3000''
:6. Go view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores".
::6.1. Assure that there is a column for self-review scores
::6.2. Confirm there is a composite score calculation underneath the average peer review score.
:7. Go back to the assignment view. Click "Alternate View"
::7.1. Confirm that there is a new column illustrating the self-review average
::7.2. Confirm that there is a column in the grades table displaying composite score (Final score)
::7.3. Check is there is a doughnut chart displaying the composite score (Final score)

=== RSpec Testing ===

We plan to implement new RSpec tests to verify our implementations of the composite score calculation and the requirement to self-review first. Once written, we will be able to go more in-depth on the details of our testing.

==== Test Composite Score Derivation ====

TBD

==== Test Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ====

TBD

== Relevant Links ==

'''Our repository''': https://github.com/jhnguye4/expertiza/tree/beta

'''Pull request''': https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1831

'''Video demo''': Does not exist yet

== References ==

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Vossen/publication/333022439_SCORING_MODELS_FOR_PEER_ASSESSMENT_IN_TEAM-BASED_LEARNING_PROJECTS/links/5cd6d6b4299bf14d958a4b99/SCORING-MODELS-FOR-PEER-ASSESSMENT-IN-TEAM-BASED-LEARNING-PROJECTS.pdf Scoring models for peer assessment in team-based learning projects]

[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1611 E1984 Pull Request]

[https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1984._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_&_self-review_to_derive_grades E1984 wiki]

File:Selfreviews13.png

2020-11-11T01:54:11Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews12.png

2020-11-11T01:54:00Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews11.png

2020-11-11T01:53:50Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews10.png

2020-11-11T01:53:40Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews9.png

2020-11-11T01:53:30Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews8.png

2020-11-11T01:43:12Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews7.png

2020-11-11T01:43:02Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews6.png

2020-11-11T01:42:52Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews5.png

2020-11-11T01:42:30Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews4.png

2020-11-11T01:42:16Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews3.png

2020-11-11T01:42:04Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews2.png

2020-11-11T01:41:52Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Selfreviews1.png

2020-11-11T01:41:38Z

Jhnguye4:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2078. Improve self-review Link peer review & self-review to derive grades

2020-10-28T01:51:10Z

Jhnguye4:

== Project Overview ==

In Expertiza, it is currently possible to check the “Allow self-review” box on the Review Strategy tab of assignment creation, and then an author will be asked to review his/her own submission in addition to the submissions of others. But as currently implemented, nothing is done with the scores on these self-reviews.

There has been a previous attempt at solving this problem, but there were several issues with that implementation:

*The formula for weighting self-reviews is not modular. It needs to be, since different instructors may want to use different formulas, so several should be supported.
*There are not enough comments in the code.
*It seems to work for only one round of review.

View documentation for previous implementation [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1984._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_&_self-review_to_derive_grades here].

=== Objectives ===

Our objectives for this project are the following:

*Display the self-review score with peer-review scores for the logged in user
*Implement a way to achieve a composite score with the combination of the self-review score and peer-review scores
*Implement a requirement for the logged in user to self-review before viewing peer-reviews
*Assure that we overcome the issues outlined for the previous implementation of this project

=== Team ===

Courtney Ripoll (ctripoll)

Jonathan Nguyen (jhnguye4)

Justin Kirschner (jkirsch)

=== Files Involved ===

TBD

=== Use Case for Self-Assessment ===

The following diagram illustrates how the self-assessment feature should work between student and instructor within Expertiza. In summary, an instructor can create an assignment and enable self-review. A student can then submit to the assignment creates by the instructor and provide a self-review. Only then can the student view all of their review scores.

[[File:Use case diagram e2078.png|750px]]

== Design Plan for Tasks ==

=== Display Self-Review Scores w/ Peer-Reviews ===

It should be possible to see self-review scores juxtaposed with peer-review scores. Design a way to show them in the regular "View Scores" page and the alternate (heat-map) view. They should be shown amidst the other reviews, but in a way that highlights them as being a different kind of review.

==== Design Plan ====

In the current implementation of Expertiza, students can view a compilation of all peer review scores for each review question and an average of those peer-reviews. For our project, we plan to add the self-review score alongside the peer-review scores for each review question. In the wire-frame below, note that for each criterion there is a column for each peer-review score and a single column for the self-review score next to the review table. Currently implemented in the system, the avg column takes an average of all the peer-review scores. For each criterion, the avg peer-review score and the composite score will be used to calculate a composite score. This will be used to determine the overall composite score for the team's reviews. Furthermore, the average composite score is displayed on the page under the average peer review score. How we plan to derive a composite score is explained in detail in the follow section [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Derive_Composite_Score Derive Composite Score].

[[File:View wireframe v2.png|700px]]

In the alternate view, our plan does not alter the current interface too much. The only addition we plan to implement is additional columns for the self-review average and for the composite score a student has received for an assignment. The information icon paired with the Final Score column will explain the derivation of the score. Likewise, there is now an additional doughnut chart providing a visual of the composite score (green) alongside the final review score (yellow).

[[File:Alternate view wireframe v2.png|950px]]

''Note: The diagrams above are wireframes. The values displayed are not be taken literally, they are for design purposes only.''

=== Derive Composite Score ===

Implement a way to combine self-review and peer-review scores to derive a composite score. The basic idea is that the authors get more points as their self-reviews get closer to the scores given by the peer reviewers. So the function should take the scores given by peers to a particular rubric criterion and the score given by the user. The result of the formula should be displayed in a conspicuous page on the score view.

The formula we use to determine a final grade from, 1) the peer reviews and 2) how closely self reviews match the peer reviews, uses a type of additive scoring rule, which computes a weighted average between team score (peer reviews) and student rating (self review). More specifically, it uses a type of mixed additive-multiplicative scoring rule, which multiplies student score (self review) by a function of the team score (peer reviews), and adds its weighted version to the weighted peer review score. This is also known as 'assessment by adjustment'. The formula is a practical scoring rule for additive scoring with unsigned percentages (grades from 0%-100%).

The pseudo-code for a function that implements the formula is as follows:
function(avg_peer_rev_score, self_rev_score, w)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(SELF)

where:
SELF = avg_peer_review_score * (1 - (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score))
and where:
avg_peer_review_score is simply the mechanism already existing in Expertiza for assigning a grade from peer review scores.

and where:
w - weight - (0 <= w <= 1) is the inverse proportion of how much of the final grade is determined by the closeness of the self review to the average of the peer reviews (w is the proportion of the grade to be determined by the original grade determination: the peer review scores).

An example:
* The average peer review score is 4/5, the self review score is 5/5.
* The instructor chooses w to equal 0.95, so that 5% of the grade is determined from the deviation of the self review from the peer reviews.
The final grade, instead of being the peer review score of 4/5 ('''80%''') is now:
0.95*(4/5) + 0.05*(4/5*(1-|4/5-5/5|/(4/5))) = '''79%'''.
If the instructor chose w to equal 0.85 (instead of 0.95), the grade is '''77%''' (instead of 79%) because deviation from peer reviews is a larger weighted value of the final grade.

The above is a basic version of the grading formula. It is basic in that it only allows deviations of the self review scores from the peer review scores to result in a decrease in the final grade ''and'' a deviation will ''always'' result in a decrease of the final grade. We propose another parameter to the formula, l - leniency, as another way (in addition to w - weight) for the instructor to modularly determine the final grade for an assignment. The parameter l - leniency - can determine a threshold by which the final grade will account/adjust for self reviews' deviations from peer reviews only when the deviation reaches this threshold (measured in percentage deviation from the average peer review). If the difference does not meet the threshold, no penalty will be subtracted from the peer review. In addition, if the difference does not meet the threshold (the self review score is sufficiently close to the peer review scores), the instructor can choose to add points to final grade based on the magnitude of the difference. Since the formula is a mixed additive-multiplicative scoring rule (mentioned above), the instructor needs to simply pick l - leniency - as a percentage (similar to the functionality of w).

To recap: w should be chosen based on the instructor's desired percentage (w) ''of the final grade'' to be determined from peer reviews and, conversely, the instructor's desired percentage (1-w) ''of the final grade'' to be determined by the extent to which self reviews deviate from peer reviews. In addition, l - leniency, should be chosen based on the instructor's desired percentage ''of the deviation of self review from peer review'' that could result in no grade deduction from the deviation if the deviation is sufficiently small (or even a grade increase if the instructor wants to increase the score of individuals with a small deviation).

The following is pseudo-code for if an instructor wishes to not subtract from the final grade if the deviation is sufficiently small. Notice that the leniency condition, the instructor's desired percentage ''of the deviation of self review from peer review'', is naturally part of the grading formula in SELF:
if |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score <= l(leniency)
grade = avg_peer_review_score
else
run formula

In addition. instead of assigning a final grade equal to the avg_peer_review_score if the leniency condition is met, the grade can be adjusted (increased) if the instructor wishes to do so, since the self review is sufficiently close (determined by l) to the peer reviews. The formula for determining the final grade would thus add the small extent of deviation to the final grade rather than subtracting it (in SELF, 1 - ..., is changed to 1 + ...):
function(avg_peer_rev_score, self_rev_score, w)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(SELF)

where:
SELF = avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''+''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score))

In this case, the pseudo-code is:
if |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score <= l(leniency)
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''+''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score)))
else
grade = w*(avg_peer_rev_score) + (1-w)*(avg_peer_review_score * (1 '''-''' (|avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score)))

Using the previous example (average peer review score is 4/5, self review score is 5/5, w = 0.95), the self review score (5/5) differs by 25% of the peer review score (4/5). In other words, |avg_peer_review_score - self_review_score|/avg_peer_review_score = 1/4 = 25%. Based on l - leniency, the instructor can decide:

:1. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently large to warrant penalizing the final grade by (1-w)*(SELF) (so that the final grade is '''79%''', instead of 80%).

:2. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently small to warrant keeping the final grade as grade = avg_peer_review_score, with no penalty for the deviation (so that the grade is '''80%''')

:3. if a 25% deviation is sufficiently small to warrant increasing the final grade by (1-w)*(SELF), where the SELF formula contains a 1 + ..., instead of a 1 - ... (so that the grade is '''81%''')

==== Implementation Plan ====

In order to incorporate the combined score into grading, we will change the logic in grades_controller.rb, which implements the grading formula. We will remove most of the code from the previous implementation since the formula/method used is unsatisfactory. '''With the new grading formula, the grades_controller can assign a final grade by following these steps:'''

:1. We can obtain the peer review ratings and the score/grade derived from them by calling scores(), which then calls compute_assignment_score(), both from the assignment_participant.rb model. In order to compute the assignment score, compute_assignment_score() calls another method named get_assessments_for(), which is located in review_questionnare.rb model.

:2. The get_assessments_for() method will call the reviews() method, also located in assignment_participant.rb.

:3. Finally, the reviews() method will get the scores by simply calling the get_assessments_for() method located in the response_map.rb model.

:4. Once the scores have been retrieved by using the various model methods, the controller can use the scores to calculated a final grade by using the formula. This grade is then passed to the view.

Below is a flow diagram for how grades_controller.rb, which implements the grading formula (as mentioned in the first step) and presents the grade in the view (top of the diagram). Note: The self-review scores are obtained by using the true parameter in all the methods calls (as shown in the diagram), whereas the peer-review scores are retrieved similarly but omitting this parameter.

[[File:E1926_code_flow.png]]

=== Implement Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ===

There would be no challenge in giving the same self-review scores as the peer reviewers gave if the authors could see peer-review scores before they submitted their self-reviews. The user should be required to submit their self-evaluation(s) before seeing the results of their peer evaluations.

==== Implementation Plan ====

By being able to self review before peer review, it allows the author of the assignment to have an unbiased opinion on the quality of work they are submitting. When the judgement of their work is not influenced by others who have given feedback, they are able to get a clearer view of the strengths and weaknesses of their assignment. Self reviews before peer reviews can also be more beneficial to the user as it can show if the user has the correct or wrong approach to their solution compared to their peers.

In the current implementation of self review, the user is able to see the peer reviews before they have made their own self review. The reason that this is occurring is due to the fact that when the user goes to see their scores, the page is not checking that a self review has been submitted. In order to fix this issue, we will add a boolean parameter to self review and pass it to viewing pages where it is called. When a user is at the student tasks view, the "Your scores" link will be disabled if the user has not filled out their self review. If the user has filled out their self review, then he/she will be redirected to the [https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2020_-_E2078._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_%26_self-review_to_derive_grades#Display_Self-Review_Scores_w.2F_Peer-Reviews Display Self-Review Scores with Peer-Reviews] page.

Below is a control flow diagram for how a student will be able to view their peer and self review score.

[[File:Control_Flow_SelfReview.png]]

== Test Plan ==

Our project will utilize various testing techniques. These methods of testing involve manual testing (black box testing) and RSpec testing (white box testing).

=== Manual Testing ===

The steps outlined for manual testing will become clearer upon implementation, but the proposed plan is the following:

==== Prerequisite Steps ====

:1. Log in to the development instance of Expertiza as an ''instructor''
:2. Create an assignment that allows for self-reviews
::2.1. Make sure the submission deadline is after the current date and time
::2.2. Likewise, the review deadline should then be greater than the submission deadline
:3. Add two students to the newly created assignment (theoretically ''student1'' and ''student2'')
:4. Sign as ''student1''
::4.1. Submit any file or link to the new assignment
:5. Repeat step 4 ''student2''
:6. Log back in as the ''instructor''
::6.1. Alter the assignments submission date to be in the past, enabling peer reviews
:7. Log back in as ''student2''
::7.1. Perform a peer-review on the submission from ''student1''

==== Must Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ====

This test will assure that the logged in user cannot view their peer-reviews for a given assignment unless they have performed a self-review.

:1. Log in as ''student1''
:2. Attempt to view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores" within the assignment. This button should be disabled
:3. Perform a self-review
:4. Go view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores". This button should now be enabled

==== Viewing Self Review Score Juxtaposed with Peer Review Scores ====

This test confirms that the the students self-review scores are displayed with peer-review scores. It additionally confirms that self-review scores are considered in the review grading with the calculation of a composite score.

:1. Log in as ''student1''
:2. Go view peer-review scores by clicking on "Your Scores". If this button is disabled, user must self-review
::2.1. Assure that there is a column for self-review scores
::2.2. Confirm there is a composite score calculation underneath the average peer review score.
:3. Go back to the assignment view. Click "Alternate View"
::3.1. Confirm that there is a column in the grades table displaying composite score
::3.2. Check is there is a doughnut chart displaying the composite score

=== RSpec Testing ===

We plan to implement new RSpec tests to verify our implementations of the composite score calculation and the requirement to self-review first. Once written, we will be able to go more in-depth on the details of our testing.

==== Test Composite Score Derivation ====

TBD

==== Test Requirement to Review Self before Viewing Peer Reviews ====

TBD

== Relevant Links ==

'''Our repository''': https://github.com/jhnguye4/expertiza/tree/beta

'''Pull request''': Does not exist yet

'''Video demo''': Does not exist yet

== References ==

[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Vossen/publication/333022439_SCORING_MODELS_FOR_PEER_ASSESSMENT_IN_TEAM-BASED_LEARNING_PROJECTS/links/5cd6d6b4299bf14d958a4b99/SCORING-MODELS-FOR-PEER-ASSESSMENT-IN-TEAM-BASED-LEARNING-PROJECTS.pdf Scoring models for peer assessment in team-based learning projects]

[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza/pull/1611 E1984 Pull Request]

[https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1984._Improve_self-review_Link_peer_review_&_self-review_to_derive_grades E1984 wiki]

File:Control Flow SelfReview.png

2020-10-28T01:47:45Z

Jhnguye4:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2078. Improve self-review Link peer review & self-review to derive grades

2020-10-21T01:37:56Z

Jhnguye4:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2078. Improve self-review Link peer review & self-review to derive grades

2020-10-21T00:59:00Z

Jhnguye4:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2078. Improve self-review Link peer review & self-review to derive grades

2020-10-21T00:56:38Z

Jhnguye4:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2073. Refactor course controller.rb

2020-10-13T18:41:34Z

Jhnguye4:

== Introduction ==
Expertiza is an open source web application in Ruby on Rails. Its purpose is to allow teachers and students an environment to enhance learning. For teachers, they can use this platform to create, edit, or grade assignments. Students are able to view assignments that teachers have posted, create teams for projects, and review other peers assignments. By having one platform for students and teachers to engage, students are able to stay on top of their tasks and teachers can monitor how well their students are learning the material.

== Problem ==
=== Background of Course Controller===
Courses are an essential part of Expertiza as students and teachers can be grouped together by a course. The course_controller has many important functionalities such as creating, modifying, and deleting courses. It also has other functionalities such as adding, removing, or viewing TA's. When the course_controller is called to create or modify a course, the course's name, institution ID, directory path, or info can be updated. Our task for this assignment is to refactor some of the code in the course_controller file.
=== Motivation ===
Why do we want to refactor course_controller? Refactoring is the process of restructuring existing code without changing its behavior. It is important to refactor to keep your code readable, understandable, and clean so that future developers can understand your code when they want to implement or change existing code. For the course_controller, we wanted to refactor it to courses_controller since the current convention of rails requires that controllers be plural. We also wanted to improve readability by removing redundant code in two functions and also fixing a warning message to be more understandable. Lastly we removed a function in course_controller that belonged in a model and not a controller.
=== Issues that Need to be Fixed ===
The following tasks were accomplished in this project: 
1)The class should be named courses_controller.rb, to follow the current Rails convention that controllers should be named in the plural. 
2)Edit the warning message in the copy function 
3)Remove duplicate code in the create and update functions 
4)Remove create_course_node function as it does not belong in a controller and move it to course_node.rb 

== Refactors ==
===Issue 1 ===
Issue: The class should be named courses_controller.rb, to follow the current Rails convention that controllers should be named in the plural. 
Solution: By changing the name of the class from course_controller.rb to courses_controller.rb, we needed to go through all the files where Course was called and change it to Courses.
 
[[File: courses1.png]]
 
[[File: courses2.png]]
 
[[File: courses12.png]]
 
[[File: courses11.png]]
 
===Issue 2 ===
Issue: Edit the warning message in the copy function 
Solution: When a student submits a file it should be stored at the path that the teacher specifies. If a teacher specifies a path that already has a filed stored then we need to warn the student that the path is already in use and where they should go if they do not want to overwrite the current file.
 
[[File: courses5.png]]

===Issue 3 ===
Issue: Remove duplicate code in the create and update functions 
Solution: In the first and second images below, we have removed the redundant code in the create and update functions. We replaced the redundant code with a function called set_courses_fields which we defined in the third image.
 
[[File: courses6.png]]
 
[[File: courses7.png]]
 
[[File: courses8.png]]

===Issue 4 ===
Issue: Remove create_course_node function as it does not belong in a controller and move it to course_node.rb 
Solution: For the first image, we have removed the course_node function from the courses_controller.rb file. The second image we are in the models folder for course_node.rb and we have moved course_node from course_controller.rb into this file.
 
[[File: courses9.png]]
 
[[File: courses10.png]]

== Testing ==
=== Test Plan ===
Our testing plan is to have a automated and manual testing to ensure that the application is still working after we did the refactoring. We will be using Rspec to do the automated testing and show you the steps we did to test the UI. In the subsections below we are testing the create and update methods.
=== RSpec ===
File: <code>courses_controller_spec.rb</code> 
Command to run rspec on file: <code>rspec spec/controllers/courses_controller_spec.rb</code> 
 
[[File: course_test1.png]]
 
[[File: course_test3.png]]
 
[[File: course_test2.png]]
=== UI Testing ===
[http://152.7.98.255:8080/ Expertiza with E2073]

In order to manually test some of the functionalities after refactoring course_controller:

* Login as instructor. (Username: instructor6, Password: password)
* On the navigation bar hover over Manage and a drop down menu will display
* Choose Courses
* You are now at the Courses page

==== Testing Create ====
* In order to create a course, there is a blue circle with a plus button on the right side of the page next to Actions
* Click on the blue circle and it will lead you to the New Course Page
* Fill in the information to create a new course
* After filling in the course information, click create and it should take you back to tree_display/list page
* The course you created should be listed at the top

==== Testing Update ====
* In order to update a course, go to a course that you want to modify
* To the right of the course you have chosen there will be two rows of icons
* On the first row there should be a pencil, red X, and a paper icon, if the pencil does not appear you may need to refresh the page
* To edit click on the pencil icon, this will take you to the edit page
* At the edit page you can edit whichever part of the course you want to change
* After you make your edits, click update and it will take you back to tree_display/list page where the updates will display

== Files Modified ==
config/routes.rb 
app/models/course_node.rb 
app/models/course_team.rb 
app/controllers/course_controller.rb 
app/views/course/_add_individual.html.erb 
app/views/course/_course.html.erb 
app/views/course/_ta.html.erb 
app/views/course/add_ta.js.erb 
app/views/course/edit.html.erb 
app/views/course/new.html.erb 
app/views/course/remove_ta.js.erb 
app/views/course/view_teaching_assistants.html.erb 
spec/controllers/course_controller_spec.rb 
spec/features/course_creation_spec.rb 
spec/features/instructor_interface_spec.rb 
==References==
#[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza Expertiza GitHub]
#[https://github.com/nickrgarner/expertiza GitHub Project Repository Fork]
#[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tXmwju6R7KQbvycku-bdXxa6rXSUN4BMyvjY3ROmMSw/edit Setup Expertiza Environment]
#[https://www.betterspecs.org/ Rspec Tutorials]

== Team Information ==
'''Project Mentor:'''
 Sahil Papalkar

'''Project Members:''' 
Nick Garner 
Jonathan Nguyen 
Surbhi Jha

File:Courses12.png

2020-10-13T18:40:13Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Courses3.png

2020-10-13T18:39:46Z

Jhnguye4: Jhnguye4 uploaded a new version of File:Courses3.png

File:Courses11.png

2020-10-13T18:39:16Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Courses5.png

2020-10-13T18:38:43Z

Jhnguye4: Jhnguye4 uploaded a new version of File:Courses5.png

File:Courses5.png

2020-10-13T18:32:16Z

Jhnguye4: Jhnguye4 uploaded a new version of File:Courses5.png

File:Courses3.png

2020-10-13T18:32:07Z

Jhnguye4: Jhnguye4 uploaded a new version of File:Courses3.png

File:Course test3.png

2020-10-13T18:25:47Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Course test1.png

2020-10-13T18:23:15Z

Jhnguye4: Jhnguye4 uploaded a new version of File:Course test1.png

File:Course test2.png

2020-10-13T18:21:29Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Course test1.png

2020-10-13T18:21:20Z

Jhnguye4:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2073. Refactor course controller.rb

2020-10-13T01:43:15Z

Jhnguye4:

== Introduction ==
Expertiza is an open source web application in Ruby on Rails. Its purpose is to allow teachers and students an environment to enhance learning. For teachers, they can use this platform to create, edit, or grade assignments. Students are able to view assignments that teachers have posted, create teams for projects, and review other peers assignments. By having one platform for students and teachers to engage, students are able to stay on top of their tasks and teachers can monitor how well their students are learning the material.

== Problem ==
=== Background of Course Controller===
Courses are an essential part of Expertiza as students and teachers can be grouped together by a course. The course_controller has many important functionalities such as creating, modifying, and deleting courses. It also has other functionalities such as adding, removing, or viewing TA's. When the course_controller is called to create or modify a course, the course's name, institution ID, directory path, or info can be updated. Our task for this assignment is to refactor some of the code in the course_controller file.
=== Motivation ===
Why do we want to refactor course_controller? Refactoring is the process of restructuring existing code without changing its behavior. It is important to refactor to keep your code readable, understandable, and clean so that future developers can understand your code when they want to implement or change existing code. For the course_controller, we wanted to refactor it to courses_controller since the current convention of rails requires that controllers be plural. We also wanted to improve readability by removing redundant code in two functions and also fixing a warning message to be more understandable. Lastly we removed a function in course_controller that belonged in a model and not a controller.
=== Issues that Need to be Fixed ===
The following tasks were accomplished in this project: 
1)The class should be named courses_controller.rb, to follow the current Rails convention that controllers should be named in the plural. 
2)Edit the warning message in the copy function 
3)Remove duplicate code in the create and update functions 
4)Remove create_course_node function as it does not belong in a controller and move it to course_node.rb 

== Refactors ==
===Issue 1 ===
Issue: The class should be named courses_controller.rb, to follow the current Rails convention that controllers should be named in the plural. 
Solution: By changing the name of the class from course_controller.rb to courses_controller.rb, we needed to go through all the files where Course was called and change it to Courses.
 
[[File: courses1.png]]
 
[[File: courses2.png]]
 
[[File: courses3.png]]
 
[[File: courses4.png]]
 
===Issue 2 ===
Issue: Edit the warning message in the copy function 
Solution: When a student submits a file it should be stored at the path that the teacher specifies. If a teacher specifies a path that already has a filed stored then we need to warn the student that the path is already in use and where they should go if they do not want to overwrite the current file.
 
[[File: courses5.png]]

===Issue 3 ===
Issue: Remove duplicate code in the create and update functions 
Solution: In the first and second images below, we have removed the redundant code in the create and update functions. We replaced the redundant code with a function called set_courses_fields which we defined in the third image.
 
[[File: courses6.png]]
 
[[File: courses7.png]]
 
[[File: courses8.png]]

===Issue 4 ===
Issue: Remove create_course_node function as it does not belong in a controller and move it to course_node.rb 
Solution: For the first image, we have removed the course_node function from the courses_controller.rb file. The second image we are in the models folder for course_node.rb and we have moved course_node from course_controller.rb into this file.
 
[[File: courses9.png]]
 
[[File: courses10.png]]

== Testing ==
=== Test Plan ===
=== RSpec ===
=== UI Testing ===
[http://152.7.98.255:8080/ Expertiza with E2073]

In order to manually test some of the functionalities after refactoring course_controller:

* Login as instructor. (Username: instructor6, Password: password)

== Files Modified ==
config/routes.rb 
app/models/course_node.rb 
app/models/course_team.rb 
app/controllers/course_controller.rb 
app/views/course/_add_individual.html.erb 
app/views/course/_course.html.erb 
app/views/course/_ta.html.erb 
app/views/course/add_ta.js.erb 
app/views/course/edit.html.erb 
app/views/course/new.html.erb 
app/views/course/remove_ta.js.erb 
app/views/course/view_teaching_assistants.html.erb 
spec/controllers/course_controller_spec.rb 
spec/features/course_creation_spec.rb 
spec/features/instructor_interface_spec.rb 
==References==
#[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza Expertiza GitHub]
#[https://github.com/nickrgarner/expertiza GitHub Project Repository Fork]
#[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tXmwju6R7KQbvycku-bdXxa6rXSUN4BMyvjY3ROmMSw/edit Setup Expertiza Environment]
#[https://www.betterspecs.org/ Rspec Tutorials]

== Team Information ==
'''Project Mentor:'''
 Sahil Papalkar

'''Project Members:''' 
Nick Garner 
Jonathan Nguyen 
Surbhi Jha

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2073. Refactor course controller.rb

2020-10-12T23:13:22Z

Jhnguye4:

== Introduction ==
Expertiza is an open source web application in Ruby on Rails. Its purpose is to allow teachers and students an environment to enhance learning. For teachers, they can use this platform to create, edit, or grade assignments. Students are able to view assignments that teachers have posted, create teams for projects, and review other peers assignments. By having one platform for students and teachers to engage, students are able to stay on top of their tasks and teachers can monitor how well their students are learning the material.

== Problem ==
=== Background of Course Controller===
Courses are an essential part of Expertiza as students and teachers can be grouped together by a course. The course controller has many important functionalities such as creating, modifying, and deleting courses. It also has other functionalities such as adding, removing, or viewing TA's. When the course controller is called to create or modify a course, the course's name, institution ID, directory path, or info can be updated. Our task for this assignment is to refactor some of the code in the course_controller.rb file.
=== Motivation ===
Why do we want to refactor course controller? Refactoring is the process of restructuring existing code without changing its behavior. It is important to refactor to keep your code readable, understandable, and clean so that future developers can understand your code when they want to implement or change existing code. For the course controller, we wanted to refactor it to courses controller since the current convention of rails requires that controllers be plural. We also wanted to improve readability by removing redundant code in two functions and also fixing a warning message to be more understandable. Lastly we removed a function in course controller that belonged in a model and not a controller.
=== Issues that Need to be Fixed ===
The following tasks were accomplished in this project: 
1)The class should be named courses_controller.rb, to follow the current Rails convention that controllers should be named in the plural. 
2)Edit the warning message in the copy function 
3)Remove duplicate code in the create and update functions 
4)Remove create_course_node function as it does not belong in a controller and move it to course_node.rb 

== Refactors ==
===Issue 1 ===
Issue: The class should be named courses_controller.rb, to follow the current Rails convention that controllers should be named in the plural. 
Solution: By changing the name of the class from course_controller.rb to courses_controller.rb, we needed to go through all the files where Course was called and change it to Courses.
 
[[File: courses1.png]]
 
[[File: courses2.png]]
 
[[File: courses3.png]]
 
[[File: courses4.png]]
 
===Issue 2 ===
Issue: Edit the warning message in the copy function 
Solution: When a student submits a file it should be stored at the path that the teacher specifies. If a teacher specifies a path that already has a filed stored then we need to warn the student that the path is already in use and where they should go if they do not want to overwrite the current file.
 
[[File: courses5.png]]

===Issue 3 ===
Issue: Remove duplicate code in the create and update functions 
Solution: In the first and second images below, we have removed the redundant code in the create and update functions. We replaced the redundant code with a function called set_courses_fields which we defined in the third image.
 
[[File: courses6.png]]
 
[[File: courses7.png]]
 
[[File: courses8.png]]

===Issue 4 ===
Issue: Remove create_course_node function as it does not belong in a controller and move it to course_node.rb 
Solution: For the first image, we have removed the course_node function from the courses_controller.rb file. The second image we are in the models folder for course_node.rb and we have moved course_node from course_controller.rb into this file.
 
[[File: courses9.png]]
 
[[File: courses10.png]]

== Testing ==
=== Test Plan ===
=== RSpec ===
=== UI Testing ===

== Files Modified ==
config/routes.rb 
app/models/course_node.rb 
app/models/course_team.rb 
app/controllers/course_controller.rb 
app/views/course/_add_individual.html.erb 
app/views/course/_course.html.erb 
app/views/course/_ta.html.erb 
app/views/course/add_ta.js.erb 
app/views/course/edit.html.erb 
app/views/course/new.html.erb 
app/views/course/remove_ta.js.erb 
app/views/course/view_teaching_assistants.html.erb 
spec/controllers/course_controller_spec.rb 
spec/features/course_creation_spec.rb 
spec/features/instructor_interface_spec.rb 
==References==
#[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza Expertiza GitHub]
#[https://github.com/nickrgarner/expertiza GitHub Project Repository Fork]
#[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tXmwju6R7KQbvycku-bdXxa6rXSUN4BMyvjY3ROmMSw/edit Setup Expertiza Environment]
#[https://www.betterspecs.org/ Rspec Tutorials]

== Team Information ==
'''Project Mentor:'''
 Sahil Papalkar

'''Project Members:''' 
Nick Garner 
Jonathan Nguyen 
Surbhi Jha

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2073. Refactor course controller.rb

2020-10-12T22:49:48Z

Jhnguye4:

CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2073. Refactor course controller.rb

2020-10-10T19:53:43Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Courses10.png

2020-10-10T19:41:46Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Courses9.png

2020-10-10T19:41:35Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Courses8.png

2020-10-10T19:37:12Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Courses7.png

2020-10-10T19:37:02Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Courses6.png

2020-10-10T19:36:53Z

Jhnguye4:

File:Courses5.png

2020-10-10T19:31:40Z

Jhnguye4: