框架反馈:选择支持高质量同行评估的审查环境特征

Catherine M. Hicks, Vineet Pandey, C. Fraser, Scott R. Klemmer
{"title":"框架反馈:选择支持高质量同行评估的审查环境特征","authors":"Catherine M. Hicks, Vineet Pandey, C. Fraser, Scott R. Klemmer","doi":"10.1145/2858036.2858195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Peer assessment is rapidly growing in online learning, as it presents a method to address scalability challenges. However, research suggests that the benefits of peer review are obtained inconsistently. This paper explores why, introducing three ways that framing task goals significantly changes reviews. Three experiments manipulated features in the review environment. First, adding a numeric scale to open text reviews was found to elicit more explanatory, but lower quality reviews. Second, structuring a review task into short, chunked stages elicited more diverse feedback. Finally, showing reviewers a draft along with finished work elicited reviews that focused more on the work's goals than aesthetic details. These findings demonstrate the importance of carefully structuring online learning environments to ensure high quality peer reviews.","PeriodicalId":169608,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"40","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Framing Feedback: Choosing Review Environment Features that Support High Quality Peer Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Catherine M. Hicks, Vineet Pandey, C. Fraser, Scott R. Klemmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2858036.2858195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Peer assessment is rapidly growing in online learning, as it presents a method to address scalability challenges. However, research suggests that the benefits of peer review are obtained inconsistently. This paper explores why, introducing three ways that framing task goals significantly changes reviews. Three experiments manipulated features in the review environment. First, adding a numeric scale to open text reviews was found to elicit more explanatory, but lower quality reviews. Second, structuring a review task into short, chunked stages elicited more diverse feedback. Finally, showing reviewers a draft along with finished work elicited reviews that focused more on the work's goals than aesthetic details. These findings demonstrate the importance of carefully structuring online learning environments to ensure high quality peer reviews.\",\"PeriodicalId\":169608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"40\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 40

摘要

同行评估在在线学习中迅速发展,因为它提供了一种解决可扩展性挑战的方法。然而,研究表明,同行评议的好处是不一致的。本文探讨了其中的原因,介绍了构建任务目标显著改变评审的三种方式。三个实验在审查环境中操纵特征。首先,在开放文本评论中添加一个数字刻度被发现会引出更多的解释性,但质量较低的评论。第二,将一个复习任务组织成短的、分块的阶段,可以得到更多样化的反馈。最后,向审稿人展示一份草稿和完成的作品,会让审稿人更关注作品的目标,而不是美学细节。这些发现证明了精心构建在线学习环境以确保高质量同行评议的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Framing Feedback: Choosing Review Environment Features that Support High Quality Peer Assessment
Peer assessment is rapidly growing in online learning, as it presents a method to address scalability challenges. However, research suggests that the benefits of peer review are obtained inconsistently. This paper explores why, introducing three ways that framing task goals significantly changes reviews. Three experiments manipulated features in the review environment. First, adding a numeric scale to open text reviews was found to elicit more explanatory, but lower quality reviews. Second, structuring a review task into short, chunked stages elicited more diverse feedback. Finally, showing reviewers a draft along with finished work elicited reviews that focused more on the work's goals than aesthetic details. These findings demonstrate the importance of carefully structuring online learning environments to ensure high quality peer reviews.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reconstituting the Utopian Vision of Making: HCI After Technosolutionism Proactive Sensing for Improving Hand Pose Estimation On Looking at the Vagina through Labella Simplified Audio Production in Asynchronous Voice-Based Discussions ShapeCanvas: An Exploration of Shape-Changing Content Generation by Members of the Public
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1