Framing Feedback: Choosing Review Environment Features that Support High
Quality Peer Assessment
Learning Feedback
/
Hicks, Catherine M.
/
Pandey, Vineet
/
Fraser, C. Ailie
/
Klemmer, Scott
Proceedings of the ACM CHI'16 Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems
2016-05-07
v.1
p.458-469
© Copyright 2016 ACM
Summary: 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.
Stairway Step Dimensions: Replication of a Measurement System Study
Forensics Professional: FP1 -- Theoretical Issues in Forensic Human Factors
/
Hicks, Christopher L.
/
Jensen, Roger C.
/
Adams, Joselynn M.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2013 Annual Meeting
2013-09-30
p.575-579
doi 10.1177/1541931213571123
© Copyright 2013 HFES
Summary: This paper reports a replication of a prior measurement system study. The
earlier study examined the nosing-to-nosing measurement system for measuring
steps in a stairway to determine uniformity. In each study, two individuals
measured six flights of stairs on two separate occasions. The difference in the
first and second study was the different measurers. Step attributes used to
define uniformity are riser height and tread depth. The measurers in each study
obtained 744 values of riser height and 672 values of tread depth. The ANOVA
for each study indicated that less than 4% of the variance in these attributes
was due to the measurers; the remainder of variability was due to physical
differences in the steps. ANOVA results of this replication led to essentially
the same conclusion as the initial study -- that the nosing-to-nosing
measurement system is acceptable for measuring step dimensions.
