1 / 23

Building Resources for Teaching Computer Architecture Through Peer Review

Building Resources for Teaching Computer Architecture Through Peer Review. Edward F. Gehringer Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering Dept. of Computer Science North Carolina State University efg@ncsu.edu. Peer Review. Long used for technical papers.

jgodbout
Télécharger la présentation

Building Resources for Teaching Computer Architecture Through Peer Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building Resources for Teaching Computer Architecture Through Peer Review Edward F. Gehringer Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering Dept. of Computer Science North Carolina State University efg@ncsu.edu

  2. Peer Review • Long used for technical papers. • First used in courses in early 1970s. • Hundreds of studies. • Much more practical with networked computing. • Widely used in writing courses (e.g., Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment)

  3. Peer Review on the Web • Can accept submissions in almost any format. • Web is a familiar interface. • Web-creation skills are important to students. • Web interface allows use in DE. • Facilitates the production of Web resources.

  4. Overview • The implementation • The review cycle • How peer grading has been used • Student reaction

  5. The Implementation: PG • Students develop homework in the form of one or more Web pages. • Students submit their pages to the system. • The system copies them to a new Web address, concealing the submitter’s identity. • Reviewers are assigned semiautomatically. • Reviewers and authors communicate via a shared Web page. • Reviewers assign grades, and the system averages them.

  6. The PG Login Page

  7. Choosing an Assignment

  8. Selecting Submission to Review

  9. Submitting and Reviewing • A student logging in has a choice of whether to submit or review. • If submitting— • can use a browser to select a file. • can submit one file at a time, or • a whole network of pages in a single Zip file. • If reviewing— • is presented with a set of pages to review. • can click on one and type in comments.

  10. Reviewing a Submission • Review is based on a rubric. • A numeric score is assigned to several questions. • Grade is calculated from these scores. • Ample opportunity for comments.

  11. Overview • The implementation • The review cycle • How peer grading has been used • Student reaction

  12. Submit-Review-Publish Cycle • Signup phase. A limited number of students allowed to sign up for each choice. • Initial feedback phase. Students given 2–7 days to make initial comments. • Resubmission phase. 2–7 days to revise work in response to reviewer comments. • Grading phase. 3–7 days to make final comments and assign scores. • Review of review phase. Students review each other’s reviews. • Web-publishing phase. PG creates a Web page with the “best” assignment in each category.

  13. Overview • The implementation • The review cycle • How peer review has been used • Student reaction

  14. How Peer Review Has Been Used • Researching lecture material. • Find links related to each lecture. • Annotating on-line lecture notes. • Writing research papers. • Reviewing papers from the literature. • Making up homework problems. • Making up machine-scorable questions. • Weekly reviews.

  15. Annotating a Lecture • Students electronically sign up to review a particular lecture, • then add hyper-links to instructor’s on-line notes.

  16. Research Papers • Can include hyperlinks to Web documents. • Different students can sign up to write on different topics.

  17. Madeup Problems

  18. Madeup Problems, cont.

  19. Choosing Assignment Types

  20. Producing Resources • A “divide and conquer” approach to large projects. • Lecture annotations for an entire semester. • Machine-scorable questions for each lecture. • Madeup problems for the Computer Architecture Course Database (cf. WCAE 1998, WCAE 2000).

  21. Overview • The implementation • The review cycle • How peer grading has been used • Student reaction

  22. Student Reaction • Students have reacted quite positively to peer review. • When asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5, “Peer review is helpful to the learning process,” • five classes rated it 3.41 to 4.24, with the highest score given by one of the classes that did the most peer-reviewed assignments. • By a score of 3.9, students said that reviews of reviews motivated them to do careful reviews.

  23. Conclusion • Electronic peer review is an effective teaching tool. • Students do a careful job on their assignments, and in their review of each other. • When students do different work, it can be aggregated to produce impressive resources for future classes.

More Related