在社交问答中提供反馈以支持答案

John Frens, Erin Walker, Gary Hsieh
{"title":"在社交问答中提供反馈以支持答案","authors":"John Frens, Erin Walker, Gary Hsieh","doi":"10.1145/3231644.3231653","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Prior research has examined the use of Social Question and Answer (Q&A) websites for answer and help seeking. However, the potential for these websites to support domain learning has not yet been realized. Helping users write effective answers can be beneficial for subject area learning for both answerers and the recipients of answers. In this study, we examine the utility of crowdsourced, criteria-based feedback for answerers on a student-centered Q&A website, Brainly.com. In an experiment with 55 users, we compared perceptions of the current rating system against two feedback designs with explicit criteria (Appropriate, Understandable, and Generalizable). Contrary to our hypotheses, answerers disagreed with and rejected the criteria-based feedback. Although the criteria aligned with answerers' goals, and crowdsourced ratings were found to be objectively accurate, the norms and expectations for answers on Brainly conflicted with our design. We conclude with implications for the design of feedback in social Q&A.","PeriodicalId":20634,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Supporting answerers with feedback in social Q&A\",\"authors\":\"John Frens, Erin Walker, Gary Hsieh\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3231644.3231653\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Prior research has examined the use of Social Question and Answer (Q&A) websites for answer and help seeking. However, the potential for these websites to support domain learning has not yet been realized. Helping users write effective answers can be beneficial for subject area learning for both answerers and the recipients of answers. In this study, we examine the utility of crowdsourced, criteria-based feedback for answerers on a student-centered Q&A website, Brainly.com. In an experiment with 55 users, we compared perceptions of the current rating system against two feedback designs with explicit criteria (Appropriate, Understandable, and Generalizable). Contrary to our hypotheses, answerers disagreed with and rejected the criteria-based feedback. Although the criteria aligned with answerers' goals, and crowdsourced ratings were found to be objectively accurate, the norms and expectations for answers on Brainly conflicted with our design. We conclude with implications for the design of feedback in social Q&A.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3231644.3231653\",\"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 Fifth Annual ACM Conference on Learning at Scale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3231644.3231653","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

先前的研究已经检查了使用社交问答(Q&A)网站来寻求答案和帮助。然而,这些网站支持领域学习的潜力尚未实现。帮助用户写出有效的答案对于答题者和答题者的学科领域学习都是有益的。在这项研究中,我们研究了以学生为中心的问答网站Brainly.com上,众包的、基于标准的回答反馈的效用。在一项有55名用户参与的实验中,我们比较了当前评级系统与两种具有明确标准(适当、可理解和可概括)的反馈设计的看法。与我们的假设相反,回答者不同意并拒绝了基于标准的反馈。虽然标准与回答者的目标一致,而且众包评分被发现在客观上是准确的,但Brainly上对答案的规范和期望与我们的设计相冲突。我们总结了社交问答反馈设计的启示。
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
Supporting answerers with feedback in social Q&A
Prior research has examined the use of Social Question and Answer (Q&A) websites for answer and help seeking. However, the potential for these websites to support domain learning has not yet been realized. Helping users write effective answers can be beneficial for subject area learning for both answerers and the recipients of answers. In this study, we examine the utility of crowdsourced, criteria-based feedback for answerers on a student-centered Q&A website, Brainly.com. In an experiment with 55 users, we compared perceptions of the current rating system against two feedback designs with explicit criteria (Appropriate, Understandable, and Generalizable). Contrary to our hypotheses, answerers disagreed with and rejected the criteria-based feedback. Although the criteria aligned with answerers' goals, and crowdsourced ratings were found to be objectively accurate, the norms and expectations for answers on Brainly conflicted with our design. We conclude with implications for the design of feedback in social Q&A.
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
Multimedia learning principles at scale predict quiz performance How a data-driven course planning tool affects college students' GPA: evidence from two field experiments Team based assignments in MOOCs: results and observations Towards adapting to learners at scale: integrating MOOC and intelligent tutoring frameworks Docent
×
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