CSC/ECE 517 Fall 2021 - E2152. Revision planning tool

This page provides a description of the Expertiza based OSS project.

Introduction

Rounds of peer reviews may be implemented between submissions for assignments on Expertiza. In order to better track the implementation of reviewer's suggestions, a Revision Planning Tool should be implemented.

Problem Statement

Students cannot edit the revision plan in the review phase so the review doesn't get changed while other students are reviewing. However, it assumes that reviews cannot be done during the submission phase. Code needs to be written to take care of this part. Set up an assignment with 2 rounds of review. Allow editing the revision-planning rubric just like editing a normal rubric, using a shared template .Instructors and students can view the review report with the revision plan placed in a separate section. In RevisionPlanQuestionnairesController, the method for determining who's on a team would be better located in team.rb. The current_round method duplicates a method elsewhere in the system. The generate_heatgrid has too many conditional statements. It would be better to split it into smaller methods. A lot of code deals with score calculations, which shouldn't be a concern for this project. Too many files are involved, although they seem to make reasonable decisions about their changes. The code should have more comments. The team had a good initial design but took as twice much as LoC compared to the previous teams.

Rationale

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.

Team Members

Kai Gao (kgao2@ncsu.edu)
Huangxing Chen (hchen63)
Yi Li (yli273)
Shengjie Guo (sguo25)
Mentor: Nicholas Himes (nnhimes@ncsu.edu)