E1875 Revision Planning Tool: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
== What needs to be done? == | == What needs to be done? == | ||
# Develop UI for authors to create new questions to add to the second round-rubric. This should be a form that includes the following: | # Develop UI for authors to create new questions to add to the second round-rubric. This should be a form that includes the following: | ||
## A description of the revision plan. Eg: We will add feature X to address issues a,b and c. We will modify feature Y and expect it to resolve errors d, c and e. | |||
## One or more questions for every proposed improvement. Example: | |||
### How effectively did feature X address / solve issues a, b and c? | |||
### Did modification of feature Y resolve error d? | |||
# Every new question must be linked to the second-round questionnaire. | # Every new question must be linked to the second-round questionnaire. | ||
# Every new question must be linked to the author’s submission | # Every new question must be linked to the author’s submission | ||
Revision as of 18:42, 13 November 2018
Revision History
| Name | Date | Reason for change | Version? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amogh, Matt, Barrett, Rahul | 12th November | Design Outline, Initial Draft | 0.1 |
| Rahul | 12th November | Implementation Plan | 0.2 |
| Matt | 13th November | Edit, Reorganize Doc | 0.3 |
| Barret | 13th November | UI Mockup | 0.4 |
| Amogh | 13th November | Wiki Draft | 0.5 |
What's it about?
In the first round of Expertiza reviews, we ask reviewers to give authors some guidance on how to improve their work. Then in the second round, reviewers rate how well authors have followed their suggestions. We could carry the interaction one step further if we asked authors to make up a revision plan based on the first-round reviews. That is, authors would say what they were planning to do to improve their work. Then second-round reviewers would assess how well they did it. In essence, this means that authors would be adding criteria to the second-round rubric that applied only to their submission. We are interested in having this implemented and used in a class so that we can study its effect.
What needs to be done?
- Develop UI for authors to create new questions to add to the second round-rubric. This should be a form that includes the following:
- A description of the revision plan. Eg: We will add feature X to address issues a,b and c. We will modify feature Y and expect it to resolve errors d, c and e.
- One or more questions for every proposed improvement. Example:
- How effectively did feature X address / solve issues a, b and c?
- Did modification of feature Y resolve error d?
- Every new question must be linked to the second-round questionnaire.
- Every new question must be linked to the author’s submission
Problem Statement
In the 2nd round of reviews, the Author should be able to add a statement to direct towards Author selected improvements from Round 1 to Round 2.
Motivation
The OSS and Final projects are different for every team. From a reviewers perspective, not all questions make sense for all projects. The motivation behind this project is:
- Questions unique to each project gives the reviewers a perspective on the author’s objectives.
- Allow the Author to get feedback on whether or not they accomplished their self-directed goal.