1 / 37

Online Student Peer Reviews

Online Student Peer Reviews. William J. Wolfe Professor of Computer Science California State University Channel Islands william.wolfe@csuci.edu. Peer Reviews – Pro. Students learn from each other. Students get lots of feedback. Students develop skills as evaluators.

hamish
Download Presentation

Online Student Peer Reviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Online Student Peer Reviews William J. Wolfe Professor of Computer Science California State University Channel Islands william.wolfe@csuci.edu

  2. Peer Reviews – Pro • Students learn from each other. • Students get lots of feedback. • Students develop skills as evaluators. • Students learn to appreciate evaluation criteria. • Students see how they compare to their peers. • Students see the class from teacher’s perspective. • Students get to know each other. • Teacher plays role of supervisor (A much better use of the teacher’s skills/knowledge).

  3. Peer Reviews – Con • Students don’t know the subject. • Students are not skilled evaluators. • Students can not, or will not, do that much work. • Students will copy (cheat)! • Keeping track of the reviews is very difficult. • Student privacy.

  4. Peer Reviews: Some Issues • Which assignment(s)? • How many reviewers? • How many reviews does each student get? • Who reviews whom? • Anonymous reviews? • Grades based on peer reviews? • Grade the peer reviews? • Peer review of the peer reviews? • Opportunity to revise based on reviews?

  5. Peer Reviews – How? • Student Web Pages: • Students post homework solutions on their own web page. • Course Web Site: • Set up course web site to manage all the peer review activity. Keep track of: • Links to student web pages, • Peer Reviews: • Scores, • Comments. • Anonymous reviews.

  6. The Course Web Site

  7. List of Student Links

  8. Student Web Pages

  9. Grading Criteria (Rubric)

  10. Entering a Peer Review

  11. Peer Reviews Received

  12. Sample Peer Review  ”Looks pretty good”

  13. Perfunctory Reviews perfunctory \pur-FUNGK-tuh-ree\ --adjective : Done merely to carry out a duty; performed mechanically; done in a careless and superficial manner; characterized by indifference

  14. Sample Peer Review You should have requirements that detail the concepts in section 4.2. Although you had some very good points (i.e. the database should look up student's degree requirements; view should list courses, etc...) almost all your requirements can be more detailed. Go through section 4.2 (each of the sections) and think of what the program would need to do to effective run. Some good examples of what requirements are necessary are on others' websites, however I'll give some to you now:1.Is there a timeline requirement?2.Is there a requirement on how much(or how little) this will cost?3.Is there security requirements?4.Is there user view requirements?These(and many other questions) are what you should answer in your requirements definition document. Good luck on Assignment #3.

  15. Average Peer Review Score

  16. Scoring Comparison

  17. Number of Reviews • Software Engineering (CSC 4508): • 34 students • Theory: • 1 Assignment: 1,122 reviews. • 15 Assignments: 16,830 reviews. • Fact: • 1 Assignment: 300 – 400 reviews. • 15 Assignments: 5,212 reviews.

  18. Software Engineering (CSC4508) Fall 2002

  19. Software Engineering (CSC 4508) Fall 2002

  20. Software Engineering (CSC 4508) Fall 2002

  21. Summary Stimulated class activity. Some passionate participation. The “audience effect”: brought up all performance levels. Very accurate evaluations (as a whole). Immediate access to examples of good and poor work. Addressed late, incomplete, and sloppy work. Needed access to web servers and web page skills.

  22. Acknowledgements Carol Holder (Director of Faculty Development CSUCI) Paul Rivera (Economics, CSUCI) Harley Baker (Psychology, CSUCI) Bob Bleicher (Education, CSUCI) Ivona Grzegorzcyk (Mathematics, CSUCI) Nathaniel Emerson (Mathematics, CSUCI) David Hibbits (Computer Science, CSUCI) Todd Gibson (Colorado Institute of Technology) Michael Cook (Forstmann Leff).

  23. References 1. Online Student Peer Reviews, Proceedings of ACM SIGITE Annual Conference, Salt Lake City Utah, Oct. 28-30, 2004. 2. Student Peer Reviews in an Upper-Division Mathematics Class, exchanges THE ONLINE JOURNAL OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IN THE CSU, (From the Classroom), September, 2003. 3. Course Web Site: http://compsci.csuci.edu/wwolfe/ucd/online Password: GUEST 4. William.Wolfe@csuci.edu

  24. Real Analysis (Math 351) Spring 2003

More Related