Framing Feedback: Choosing Review Environment Features that Support High Quality Peer Assessment

Catherine M. Hicks, Vineet Pandey, C. Fraser, Scott R. Klemmer
{"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}
引用次数: 40

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.
框架反馈:选择支持高质量同行评估的审查环境特征
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信