Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Democratizing Authoring through Computer-Supported Review

965 views

Published on

Presentation of a short paper to the CSPRED (computer supported peer review) workshop at ITS 2010.

Full title:
Democratizing Authoring through Computer-Supported Review
A proposal for two peer cycles

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Democratizing Authoring through Computer-Supported Review

  1. 1. Democratizing Authoring through Computer-Supported Review<br />Turadg Aleahmad<br />Jun 14, 2010<br />A proposal for two peer cycles<br />CSPRED / ITS 2010<br />
  2. 2. Crowd-sourcing educational content<br /><ul><li>ITS development requires much expert time
  3. 3. ITS estimates of 200-300 hrs for 1 hr instruction
  4. 4. Small groups with much effort per person</li></ul>Distributed development more scalable<br />Students can learn through critical use<br />Domain experts have blind spots<br />Domain novices have myopia<br />Goal: use computing to match strengths and weaknesses<br />2<br />
  5. 5. Wikipedia not the right model<br />3<br />
  6. 6. Wikiversity<br />4<br />
  7. 7. Wikibooks<br />5<br />
  8. 8. Issues to address<br />Management issue<br />Keeping track of multiple distinct artifacts in taxonomy<br />Their relationships, versions, sources, utility and use<br />Author vulnerability issue<br />May use their contributions in other contexts (such as their exams) and can’t risk them being revealed to learners<br />Student vulnerability issue<br />Misinformed by poor contributions or develop false confidence through seeing the question answers or solutions prematurely<br />6<br />
  9. 9. Two cycle model<br />7<br />Students<br />Authors<br />
  10. 10. Life cycle of a contribution<br />8<br />
  11. 11. Authoring<br />9<br />
  12. 12. Automatic evaluation<br />10<br />
  13. 13. Feasibility of automated rating<br />11<br />
  14. 14. Conclusion<br />Linking separated peer communities could lead to leveraging strengths and attenuating weaknesses<br />Opportunity for exploring computer supports<br />Thanks to IlyaGoldin for the conversation that prompted this work<br />Support from PIER graduate training grant from Department of Education ((#R305B040063).<br />Updates at http://OpenEducationResearch.org<br />12<br />

×