Polarity in the Classroom: A Case Study Leveraging Peer Sentiment Toward Scalable Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.10068v1
• Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 15:45:11 GMT
• Title: Polarity in the Classroom: A Case Study Leveraging Peer Sentiment Toward Scalable Assessment
• Authors: Zachariah J. Beasley, Les A. Piegl, and Paul Rosen
• Abstract summary: Accurately grading open-ended assignments in large or massive open online courses (MOOCs) is non-trivial. In this work, we detail the process by which we create our domain-dependent lexicon and aspect-informed review form. We end by analyzing validity and discussing conclusions from our corpus of over 6800 peer reviews from nine courses.
• Score: 4.588028371034406
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Accurately grading open-ended assignments in large or massive open online courses (MOOCs) is non-trivial. Peer review is a promising solution but can be unreliable due to few reviewers and an unevaluated review form. To date, no work has 1) leveraged sentiment analysis in the peer-review process to inform or validate grades or 2) utilized aspect extraction to craft a review form from what students actually communicated. Our work utilizes, rather than discards, student data from review form comments to deliver better information to the instructor. In this work, we detail the process by which we create our domain-dependent lexicon and aspect-informed review form as well as our entire sentiment analysis algorithm which provides a fine-grained sentiment score from text alone. We end by analyzing validity and discussing conclusions from our corpus of over 6800 peer reviews from nine courses to understand the viability of sentiment in the classroom for increasing the information from and reliability of grading open-ended assignments in large courses.

Related papers

• GLIMPSE: Pragmatically Informative Multi-Document Summarization for Scholarly Reviews [25.291384842659397]
  We introduce sys, a summarization method designed to offer a concise yet comprehensive overview of scholarly reviews. Unlike traditional consensus-based methods, sys extracts both common and unique opinions from the reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T15:27:01Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [58.6354685593418]
  This paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised. This work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Learning Opinion Summarizers by Selecting Informative Reviews [81.47506952645564]
  We collect a large dataset of summaries paired with user reviews for over 31,000 products, enabling supervised training. The content of many reviews is not reflected in the human-written summaries, and, thus, the summarizer trained on random review subsets hallucinates. We formulate the task as jointly learning to select informative subsets of reviews and summarizing the opinions expressed in these subsets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-09T15:01:43Z)
• Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? [89.50052670307434]
  We discuss the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. We collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-30T07:16:53Z)
• Are Top School Students More Critical of Their Professors? Mining Comments on RateMyProfessor.com [83.2634062100579]
  Student reviews and comments on RateMyProfessor.com reflect realistic learning experiences of students. Our study proves that student reviews and comments contain crucial information and can serve as essential references for enrollment in courses and universities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-23T20:01:36Z)
• Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis of Scientific Reviews [12.472629584751509]
  We show that the distribution of aspect-based sentiments obtained from a review is significantly different for accepted and rejected papers. As a second objective, we quantify the extent of disagreement among the reviewers refereeing a paper. We also investigate the extent of disagreement between the reviewers and the chair and find that the inter-reviewer disagreement may have a link to the disagreement with the chair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-05T07:06:01Z)
• A Unified Dual-view Model for Review Summarization and Sentiment Classification with Inconsistency Loss [51.448615489097236]
  Acquiring accurate summarization and sentiment from user reviews is an essential component of modern e-commerce platforms. We propose a novel dual-view model that jointly improves the performance of these two tasks. Experiment results on four real-world datasets from different domains demonstrate the effectiveness of our model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-02T13:34:11Z)
• Topic Detection and Summarization of User Reviews [6.779855791259679]
  We propose an effective new summarization method by analyzing both reviews and summaries. A new dataset comprising product reviews and summaries about 1028 products are collected from Amazon and CNET.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-30T02:19:08Z)
• How Useful are Reviews for Recommendation? A Critical Review and Potential Improvements [8.471274313213092]
  We investigate a growing body of work that seeks to improve recommender systems through the use of review text. Our initial findings reveal several discrepancies in reported results, partly due to copying results across papers despite changes in experimental settings or data pre-processing. Further investigation calls for discussion on a much larger problem about the "importance" of user reviews for recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-25T16:30:05Z)
• Code Review in the Classroom [57.300604527924015]
  Young developers in a classroom setting provide a clear picture of the potential favourable and problematic areas of the code review process. Their feedback suggests that the process has been well received with some points to better the process. This paper can be used as guidelines to perform code reviews in the classroom.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-19T06:07:45Z)
• Systematic Review of Approaches to Improve Peer Assessment at Scale [5.067828201066184]
  This review focuses on three facets of Peer Assessment (PA) namely Auto grading and Peer Assessment Tools (we shall look only on how peer reviews/auto-grading is carried), strategies to handle Rogue Reviews, Peer Review Improvement using Natural Language Processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-27T15:59:24Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.