An official website of the United States government
Peer evaluations are a well-established tool for evaluating individual and team performance in collaborative contexts, but are susceptible to social and cognitive biases. Current peer evaluation tools have also yet to address the unique opportunities that online collaborative technologies provide for addressing these biases. In this work, we explore the potential of one such opportunity for peer evaluations: data traces automatically generated by collaborative tools, which we refer to as "activity traces". We conduct a between-subjects experiment with 101 students and MTurk workers, investigating the effects of reviewing activity traces on peer evaluations of team members in an online collaborative task. Our findings show that the usage of activity traces led participants to make more and greater revisions to their evaluations compared to a control condition. These revisions also increased the consistency and participants' perceived accuracy of the evaluations that they received. Our findings demonstrate the value of activity traces as an approach for performing more reliable and objective peer evaluations of teamwork. Based on our findings as well as qualitative analysis of free-form responses in our study, we also identify and discuss key considerations and design recommendations for incorporating activity traces into real-world peer evaluation systems.
more »
« less
Challenges and Opportunities for Data-Centric Peer Evaluation Tools for Teamwork
Peer evaluations are critical for assessing teams, but are susceptible to bias and other factors that undermine their reliability. At the same time, collaborative tools that teams commonly use to perform their work are increasingly capable of logging activity that can signal useful information about individual contributions and teamwork. To investigate current and potential uses for activity traces in peer evaluation tools, we interviewed (N=11) and surveyed (N=242) students and interviewed (N=10) instructors at a single university. We found that nearly all of the students surveyed considered specific contributions to the team outcomes when evaluating their teammates, but also reported relying on memory and subjective experiences to make the assessment. Instructors desired objective sources of data to address challenges with administering and interpreting peer evaluations, and have already begun incorporating activity traces from collaborative tools into their evaluations of teams. However, both students and instructors expressed concern about using activity traces due to the diverse ecosystem of tools and platforms used by teams and the limited view into the context of the contributions. Based on our findings, we contribute recommendations and a speculative design for a data-centric peer evaluation tool.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2016908
- PAR ID:
- 10350669
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Volume:
- 5
- Issue:
- CSCW2
- ISSN:
- 2573-0142
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 20
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Assessing team software development projects is notoriously difficult and typically based on subjective metrics. To help make assessments more rigorous, we conducted an empirical study to explore relationships between subjective metrics based on peer and instructor assessments, and objective metrics based on GitHub and chat data. We studied 23 undergraduate software teams (n= 117 students) from two undergraduate computing courses at two North American research universities. We collected data on teams’ (a) commits and issues from their GitHub code repositories, (b) chat messages from their Slack and Microsoft Teams channels, (c) peer evaluation ratings from the CATME peer evaluation system, and (d) individual assignment grades from the courses. We derived metrics from (a) and (b) to measure both individual team members’contributionsto the team, and theequalityof team members’ contributions. We then performed Pearson analyses to identify correlations among the metrics, peer evaluation ratings, and individual grades. We found significant positive correlations between team members’ GitHub contributions, chat contributions, and peer evaluation ratings. In addition, the equality of teams’ GitHub contributions was positively correlated with teams’ average peer evaluation ratings and negatively correlated with the variance in those ratings. However, no such positive correlations were detected between the equality of teams’ chat contributions and their peer evaluation ratings. Our study extends previous research results by providing evidence that (a) team members’ chat contributions, like their GitHub contributions, are positively correlated with their peer evaluation ratings; (b) team members’ chat contributions are positively correlated with their GitHub contributions; and (c) the equality of team’ GitHub contributions is positively correlated with their peer evaluation ratings. These results lend further support to the idea that combining objective and subjective metrics can make the assessment of team software projects more comprehensive and rigorous.more » « less
-
Team formation tools assume instructors should configure the criteria for creating teams, precluding students from participating in a process affecting their learning experience. We propose LIFT, a novel learner-centered workflow where students propose, vote for, and weigh the criteria used as inputs to the team formation algorithm. We conducted an experiment (N=289) comparing LIFT to the usual instructor-led process, and interviewed participants to evaluate their perceptions of LIFT and its outcomes. Learners proposed novel criteria not included in existing algorithmic tools, such as organizational style. They avoided criteria like gender and GPA that instructors frequently select, and preferred those promoting efficient collaboration. LIFT led to team outcomes comparable to those achieved by the instructor-led approach, and teams valued having control of the team formation process. We provide instructors and designers with a workflow and evidence supporting giving learners control of the algorithmic process used for grouping them into teams.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundTeamwork has become a central element of engineering education. However, the race‐ and gender‐based marginalization prevalent in society is also prevalent in engineering student teams. These problematic dynamics limit learning opportunities, isolate historically marginalized students, and ultimately push students away from engineering, further reinforcing the demographic imbalances in the profession. PurposeWhile there are strategies to improve the experiences of marginalized students within teams, there are few tools for detecting marginalizing behaviors as they occur. The purpose of this work is to examine how peer evaluations collected as a normal part of an engineering course can be used as a window into team dynamics to reveal marginalization as it occurs. MethodWe used a semester of peer evaluation data from a large engineering course in which a team project is the central assignment and peer evaluation occurs four times during the course. We designed an algorithm to identify teams where marginalization may be occurring. We then performed qualitative analyses using a sociolinguistic analysis. ResultsResults show that the algorithm helps identify teams where marginalization occurs. Qualitative analyses of four illustrative cases demonstrated the stealth appearance and evolution of marginalization, providing strong evidence that hidden within language of peer evaluation are indicators of marginalization. Based on the wider dataset, we present a taxonomy (eight categories) of linguistic marginalization appearing in peer comments. ConclusionBoth peer evaluation scores and the language used in peer evaluations can reveal team inequities and may serve as a near‐real‐time mechanism to interrupt marginalization within engineering teams.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)This study explored seven engineering graduate students’ collaborative problem-solving (CPS) skills while working in interdisciplinary teams. Students worked in two different teams, in face-to-face and online environments, to solve complex manufacturing design challenges posed by their instructor. The students were assessed using an observational rubric with four dimensions: peer interactions, positive communication, tools and methods and iteration and adaption, and scored via each dimension’s associated attributes, and subsequently interviewed. Six students scored emergent or proficient in CPS and had slightly higher CPS scores during the second observation. One student demonstrated a limited ability for CPS and the observable CPS skills decreased during the project. Interviews revealed the importance of (1) relying on instructor and student chosen technologies for collaborative tasks, (2) recognising and drawing on peer expertise early in the project, (3) building trust during and outside of team meetings and (4) valuing off-site and online collaborative work. Findings advance the understanding of how graduate students working in interdisciplinary teams rely on particular features of collaboration to solve engineering design challenges, which may assist in developing future skills and fostering productive teamwork.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3479576
