Beginners Guide to TikTok for Search - Rachel Pearson - We are Tilt __ Bright...
QuickEval
1. uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
Google Interview Project Team
Noah Levin. July 8th, 2010 Lauren Taglieri, Project Manager
Project Advisor: Professor Larry Heimann Ari Rubinstein, Tech Lead
http://www.quickeval.org Noah Levin, Design Lead
2. Problem
Paper peer evaluations are tedious
Most project groups have different dynamics
that can be difficult to identify
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
3. Process
A 15 Week Project
Jan Feb March april
14th 21st 28th 4th 11th 18th 25th 4th 11th 18th 21st 1st 8th 15th 22nd 29th
Initial Research
and Planning
Spring Break
Wireframing and database design
Development
3 Weeks 5 Weeks 7 Weeks
Interviews Wireframes (8 iterations) Front-End Design (xhtml, css)
Competitive Analysis User Testing (5 teachers, 5 students) Back-End Development (php / ajax)
Use Cases Data Modeling User Testing (5 rounds)
Skills Analysis
Risk Analysis
Non-Functional Requirements
Logo and Identity
Help and Documentation
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
4. Research & Planning
Jan Feb March april
14th 21st 28th 4th 11th 18th 25th 4th 11th 18th 21st 1st 8th 15th 22nd 29th
Initial Research
and Planning
Spring Break
Wireframing and database design
Development
3 Weeks 5 Weeks 7 Weeks
Interviews Wireframes (8 iterations) Front-End Design (xhtml, css)
Competitive Analysis User Testing (5 teachers, 5 students) Back-End Development (php / ajax)
Use Cases Data Modeling User Testing (5 rounds)
Skills Analysis
Risk Analysis
Non-Functional Requirements
Logo and Identity
Help and Documentation
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
5. Why peer evaluate?
1) Teachers: Adjust grades by performance
2) Students: Learn about themselves
A S
awesome
commonly sees
B S S
S
S B
T S S
S
S S
but actually...
S
S
S
S
quiet, but good!
average
C
S
S
jerks
slackers
uickEval
S
depressives SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
Source on types of group members:
“ruining it for the rest of Us.” Felps, Will. This American Life. Chicago Public Radio. 18 Dec. 2008.
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
6. Why peer evaluate?
1) Teachers: Adjust grades by performance
2) Students: Learn about themselves
Q: Rate the quality of their
work from 1-5
Q: How much time did they
contribute?
Q: Wouldher again? with
him /
you work
Jan 09 Feb 09 Mar 09 Apr 09 Jan 09 Feb 09 Mar 09 Apr 09 Jan 09 Feb 09 Mar 09 Apr 09
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
7. Wireframing & Database
ES
WIREFRAM
STUDENT TEA
Page
Evaluations Survey
CHE
R WIR
Roster EFR
AME
S
Wilkins [logout]
Welcome, Sarah | FAQ
Contact | Site Map
QuickEval
My Account
Evaluations Quick
Home
Eval
> Evaluation #1
67-373 Spring 2009
All Evaluations > Hom
e
Breadcrumbs will Evaluati
be at the top to evaluating... ons
help the user’s You are currently All Cou
rses Courses Welcome
, Mr.
orientation. > Henders
Sub tabs 67-373 My Acco
Conta on
are diffe that Spring unt ct |
[logout]
Site Map
than rent 2009 |
Jan Feb March april
the prim FAQ
[edit]
Default images navig
ation ary Roster
may load . These Results
may be used via ajax
if users do not Phil Rachael if poss
ible. Nam
Jared Brittany e
have a gravitar.
1. Ande Email + send
2 3 4 5 rson,
John an evalu
1 2. Appl ation
assumptions * egate, jande + add
Rate the following 3. Cars Phillip rs@c
mu.e Grou
p(s) student(s
Actually apple du Current )
on, Scot gate@cm
Comment bubbles the namedragging t Eval
14th 21st 28th 4th 11th 18th 25th 4th 11th 18th 21st 1st 8th 15th 22nd 29th
work 4. Davi u.edu 1
Did high quality allow you to make groups s into s, Sand scars
on@andr Complete
from 5. Davi ra ew.cmu.e
additional notes roste the davis --
if r woul s, Jame @andrew du
about a question ideal, d be s Incomple x delet
Took Initiative but 6. Dick jdavis2@ .cmu
.edu -- te e
necessary. just editin otherwise enson,
Complete x delet
g the Emily cmu.
group 7. Elder edick edu 1 e
# inline , Jared en@andr
Communicated Effectively Dark bubbles work. would 8. Gold ew.cmu.e --
Complete x delet
e
mean you’ve filled stein jelde
r1@a du
, Doug ndrew.cm Incomple x delet
it out already. 9. Jame golds -- te e
others u.edu
Worked well with s, Terra
nce
tein@
.cmu Complete x delet
10. John tjames3@ .edu 1 e
Clicking son, Incomple x delet
the grou Mark andrew.c
name mjoh -- te e
Highly Contributed would p sno@ mu.e
du Incomple x delet
you to allow andrew.c -- e
edit it. mu.e te
may add We Grou du x delet
p1 Complete
to these more -- e
Initial Research
contributed? * windows group 1. Ande Complete x delet
do you think they in the rson, e
How many hours future. 2. Davi
s, Sand
John
x delet
e
3. Elder ra
, Jared
4. West
field,
Karen
+ ADD
and Planning
* A GRO
with them again? Upon
Would you work UP clicking
user
will bega this, the
yes no stude
nts to n addin
and a the grou g
new p
the same button
Student interviews size will of
appear
showed us that in the
under next
required fields were ‘Grou
p 1’.
row
Spring Break
* will
Final remarks? not marked. We
to
use a red asterix
fix this.
CANCEL SAVE
Wireframing and database design Team 2: Lauren, Steve,
Tracy, Ari, Noah
67-373 Software Development
Project Advisor: Professor
Heimann
March 2, 2009
Team
18
2: Laure
n, Steve
, Tracy
, Ari, Noah
67-37
3 Softw
are Deve
lopme
nt Proje
ct
Advisor:
Professor
Heimann
March
2, 2009
28
Development
3 Weeks 5 Weeks 7 Weeks
Interviews Wireframes (8 iterations) Front-End Design (xhtml, css)
Competitive Analysis User Testing (5 teachers, 5 students) Back-End Development (php / ajax)
Use Cases Data Modeling User Testing (5 rounds)
Skills Analysis
Risk Analysis
Non-Functional Requirements
Logo and Identity
Help and Documentation
uickEval SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
8. Flow of Information
udents / cou
tes st rse
crea s
s evaluations
create
fxes bugs
sends A
T m essages
s
create
ew
s users
vi
Re
review s
s evaluation
er
Pe
Project Advsior
up
loa
d
s evaluat
ion
project teams S
S
S
S
S S
S S
S
S S S S
S S S
S S
S
S S S
S S
S S S S
S
S S
S S S
S
uickEval
S S S
S S S
S S
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
9. Development
Jan Feb March april
14th 21st 28th 4th 11th 18th 25th 4th 11th 18th 21st 1st 8th 15th 22nd 29th
Initial Research
and Planning
Spring Break
Wireframing and database design
Development
3 Weeks 5 Weeks 7 Weeks
Interviews Wireframes (8 iterations) Front-End Design (xhtml, css)
Competitive Analysis User Testing (5 teachers, 5 students) Back-End Development (php / ajax)
Use Cases Data Modeling User Testing (5 rounds)
Skills Analysis
Risk Analysis
Non-Functional Requirements
Logo and Identity
Help and Documentation
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
10. Our Solution
A web application for students and teachers to
quickly and efficiently evaluate peers for group
projects with a simple and intuitive
user interface.
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
12. Launched in Spring 2009!
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
13. Launched in Spring 2009!
And subsequent versions relaunched in Fall
2009, Spring 2010, and beyond...
It never ends!!
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
14. User Testing & Feedback
Over 60% forgot to fill out their evaluations
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
15. User Testing & Feedback
Over 60% forgot to fill out their evaluations
Professor’s were creating bad surveys
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
16. User Testing & Feedback
Over 60% forgot to fill out their evaluations
Professor’s were creating bad surveys
Results were ignored and hard to parse
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
18. Next Steps
Sell!
Convince Carnegie Mellon Faculty and Students
that this product is useful
Release!
Launch the next iterations to new departments
Discover!
Get as much user feedback as possible and solve
the problems with new technologies uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
22. Lessons Learned
Technical Skills
Task Planning
Teamwork
Communication
Importance of Testing
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
23. TEACH ER WI R E F R AM E S
Results (Individual)
Welcome, Mr. Henderson [logout]
QuickEval Contact | Site Map | FAQ
Home Evaluations Courses My Account
All Courses > 67-373 Spring 2009 > Results >
Evaluation #1 : Group 1
View Averages | View Individuals
Simple language Swap to view what
What did Sarah say about Phillip ? GO SWAP
might help to Phillip said about
select the desired Jared Sarah
view of results Rachael
Brittany
Rate the following assumptions You could also
Everyone
select what
Did high quality work 3 Sarah said about
‘Everyone’ to get
an idea of how
Took Initiative 2
she generally
rates people.
Communicated Effectively 1
Worked well with others 4
Highly Contributed 5
Example of viewing
It’s tough to say, but I think Phillip over-
a comment if you
estimated on his timesheet. I am still not click on it
How many hours do you think they contributed?
sure exactly how he contributed
12 hrs
Would you work with them again?
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
Yes No
24. ST U D E NT WI REF RAMES
Home Page
Welcome, Sarah Wilkins [logout]
QuickEval Contact | Site Map | FAQ
Users will have
personal avatars Home Evaluations My Account
using Gravitar
Welcome back, Sarah Quick Stats We might have
2-3 questions that
edit settings
Q: Wouldher again? with
him /
you work each survey MUST
contain in order to
receive continuous
results and learn
Y more about yourself
Will contain important Quick Alerts
information like as a groupmate.
pending evaluations,
finished evaluations, You have 3 days left to complete IS Project Evaluation #1
and account inactivity.
Jared submitted HCI: Methods Evalution #2. 42 secs ago
N
Jan 09 Feb 09 Mar 09 Apr 09
Mr. Smith extended the deadline for the IS Project
Evaluation until February 13th. 5 hrs ago view more »
The results have been posted for the HCI: Methods Quick Quotes Grabbed from the
anonymous open
Evaluation #1. 2 days ago
ended responses.
Sarah is a great teamate. Randomized so
that you can get
Very hard working. My only
a more passive
complaint is that she does understanding of
not take criticism well. your group dynamic.
view more »
uickEval
SIMPLE PEER EVALUATIONS
