库内开放教育资源质量用户认同的定量分析

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2023-02-28 DOI:10.1109/RITA.2023.3250446
Mayara Sousa Stein;Cristian Cechinel;Vinicius Faria Culmant Ramos
{"title":"库内开放教育资源质量用户认同的定量分析","authors":"Mayara Sousa Stein;Cristian Cechinel;Vinicius Faria Culmant Ramos","doi":"10.1109/RITA.2023.3250446","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Quality assessment inside learning object repositories is normally performed by the community of users that share interest and rate the same resources. At the same time, this strategy is largely disseminated in the most known repositories. In addition, the final presentation of the overall quality of the resources is normally restricted to the average rating given by the community, thus, hiding the internal distribution of the ratings and the characteristics of the users involved in the evaluation process. The present paper analyzes to which extent different raters tend to agree about the quality of the resources inside the Merlot repository. For that, data were collected from the repository and calculated the Intra-Class Correlation coefficient for 102 pairs of evaluators, as well as the Spearman correlation among the average ratings of a given resource by evaluators coming from the same categories of disciplines. Results point out a high concentration of poor agreement between raters (75% to 85% of the pairs of raters tended to disagree), and no correlation among the average ratings of the resources from the different disciplines. Based on these findings, the authors suggest improvements to the repository interface better presenting the overall quality of the resources.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative Analysis of Users’ Agreement on Open Educational Resources Quality Inside Repositories\",\"authors\":\"Mayara Sousa Stein;Cristian Cechinel;Vinicius Faria Culmant Ramos\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/RITA.2023.3250446\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Quality assessment inside learning object repositories is normally performed by the community of users that share interest and rate the same resources. At the same time, this strategy is largely disseminated in the most known repositories. In addition, the final presentation of the overall quality of the resources is normally restricted to the average rating given by the community, thus, hiding the internal distribution of the ratings and the characteristics of the users involved in the evaluation process. The present paper analyzes to which extent different raters tend to agree about the quality of the resources inside the Merlot repository. For that, data were collected from the repository and calculated the Intra-Class Correlation coefficient for 102 pairs of evaluators, as well as the Spearman correlation among the average ratings of a given resource by evaluators coming from the same categories of disciplines. Results point out a high concentration of poor agreement between raters (75% to 85% of the pairs of raters tended to disagree), and no correlation among the average ratings of the resources from the different disciplines. Based on these findings, the authors suggest improvements to the repository interface better presenting the overall quality of the resources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10056317/\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10056317/","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

学习对象存储库中的质量评估通常由共享兴趣并对相同资源进行评级的用户社区执行。同时,这种策略在大多数已知的存储库中广泛传播。此外,资源总体质量的最终呈现通常仅限于社区给出的平均评分,从而隐藏了评分的内部分布和参与评价过程的用户的特征。本文分析了不同评级者对梅洛葡萄资源质量的认同程度。为此,从存储库中收集数据,并计算102对评估者的Intra-Class相关系数,以及来自同一学科类别的评估者对给定资源的平均评级之间的Spearman相关性。结果表明,评分者之间的一致性很差(75%到85%的评分者倾向于不同意),不同学科资源的平均评分之间没有相关性。基于这些发现,作者建议对存储库接口进行改进,以更好地呈现资源的整体质量。
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
Quantitative Analysis of Users’ Agreement on Open Educational Resources Quality Inside Repositories
Quality assessment inside learning object repositories is normally performed by the community of users that share interest and rate the same resources. At the same time, this strategy is largely disseminated in the most known repositories. In addition, the final presentation of the overall quality of the resources is normally restricted to the average rating given by the community, thus, hiding the internal distribution of the ratings and the characteristics of the users involved in the evaluation process. The present paper analyzes to which extent different raters tend to agree about the quality of the resources inside the Merlot repository. For that, data were collected from the repository and calculated the Intra-Class Correlation coefficient for 102 pairs of evaluators, as well as the Spearman correlation among the average ratings of a given resource by evaluators coming from the same categories of disciplines. Results point out a high concentration of poor agreement between raters (75% to 85% of the pairs of raters tended to disagree), and no correlation among the average ratings of the resources from the different disciplines. Based on these findings, the authors suggest improvements to the repository interface better presenting the overall quality of the resources.
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Differential Costs of Raising Grandchildren on Older Mother-Adult Child Relations in Black and White Families. Does Resilience Mediate the Relationship Between Negative Self-Image and Psychological Distress in Middle-Aged and Older Gay and Bisexual Men? Intergenerational Relations and Well-being Among Older Middle Eastern/Arab American Immigrants During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Caregiving Appraisals and Emotional Valence: Moderating Effects of Activity Participation.
×
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