CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2020 - E2081. Add a "cake" item type to rubrics: Difference between revisions

From Expertiza_Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 41: Line 41:


=='''References'''==
=='''References'''==
*[https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1992._Add_cake_type_to_rubrics_design CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2019 - E1992. Add cake type to rubrics design
*[https://expertiza.csc.ncsu.edu/index.php/CSC/ECE_517_Fall_2019_-_E1992._Add_cake_type_to_rubrics_design E1992. Add cake type to rubrics design
]
]
*[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza Expertiza on GitHub]
*[https://github.com/expertiza/expertiza Expertiza on GitHub]

Revision as of 01:04, 23 October 2020


Problem Definition:

Expertiza rubrics are utilized to build questionnaires and these rubrics incorporate several kinds of items, including Criterion (dropdown + comment), Checkbox, MultipleChoice, and Scale. When we use these questionnaires for reviews, for example the teammate review assessment we encounter a few problems. One “problem” with all of these types is that there is nothing to stop a reviewer (say some student) from assigning the maximum score to all the reviewees (student's teammates). This is indeed a problem for teammate assessment, when the faculty asks for what fraction of the work each teammate did.So an alternative is needed, let’s call it a “Cake” item type, that allows a reviewer to divide a “cake” in any way between the reviewees, but does not allow him/her to divvy up more than 100% of the cake.

  1. When the reviewer submits a score that would bring the total assigned for this item to > 100%, the system needs to warn.
  2. Allow a reviewer to give him/herself a score
  3. Proposed design needs to be compatible with existing self reviews code and teammates reviews
  4. Should be extensible to other kind of reviews apart from teammate reviews as well

For instance, the above figure consists of a team of 4 members, with self included as a team-member when reviewing every member's contribution.
If A has reviewed his other 3 teammates B, C, D with contributions of 15%, 10%, and 45% respectively, he should only be allowed to review self with a contribution of 30% or lesser.

Design

Implementation

Test plan

Deployment

Team Members

  • Jordan, Dylan Tyler dtjordan@ncsu.edu
  • Ruoyun Ma rma9@ncsu.edu
  • Han, Lige lhan6@ncsu.edu
  • Kollipara, Siddhartha skollip@ncsu.edu
  • Mentor: Ed Gehringer (efg@ncsu.edu)


References

]