- Presentation abstract発表の要約
The presenters set up two Moodle Listening Homework course with 64 quizzes, of which students are asked to complete 50 by course end in January, 2022. In one course for two departments (Group Regular), participants have access to all 64 quizzes, named by title, until the last day of term. For the other eight departments, students have two-week rolling deadlines to complete 50 of the same 64 quizzes (Group Random). In addition to time restrictions, quizzes for the Random Group are partially randomized using six separate Groups (A~F), each with 64 different quizzes, though quiz content comes from the same 64 categories. The purpose of the study is to examine whether considerable time and effort spent randomizing quizzes through group restrictions and limiting access through time restrictions is worthwhile on three measures:
1. student performance as measured by completion rates;
2. student performance as measured by an end-of-term assessment;
3. reduction in cheating as measured by completion data analysis and survey data.
The presenters will briefly explain how they set up the randomized quiz course with rolling deadlines. Next will be a discussion of findings and implications for materials development. Conference participants’ questions and input will be most welcome.
- Original submission元の原稿
発表の題名: Homework: Freely available Quizzes vs. Time-Restricted, Randomized Quizzes
発表の種類: Presentation (40 mins) プレゼンテーション（４０分）
発表の言語: English 英語
発表のキーワード: Homework, Quizzes, Cheating, Randomization
The presenters set up two Moodle Listening Homework course with 64 quizzes, of which students are asked to complete 50 by course end in January, 2022. In one course for two departments (Group Regular), participants have access to all 64 quizzes, named by title, until the last day of term. For the other eight departments, students have two-week rolling deadlines to complete 50 of the same 64 quizzes (Group Random). In addition to time restrictions, quizzes for the Random Group are partially randomized using six separate Groups (A~F), each with 64 different quizzes, though quiz content comes from the same 64 categories. The purpose of the study is to examine whether considerable time and effort spent randomizing quizzes through group restrictions and limiting access through time restrictions is worthwhile on three measures:
1. student performance as measured by completion rates;
2. student performance as measured by an end-of-term assessment;
3. reduction in cheating as measured by completion data analysis and survey data.
The presenters will briefly explain how they set up the randomized quiz course with rolling deadlines. Next will be a discussion of findings and implications for materials development. Conference participants’ questions and input will be most welcome.
- Peer review details査読詳細
Peer Review 1
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|
| Clarity of Submission | 5 / 10 |
| Presentation Length | 9 / 10 |
| Originality of Submission | 7 / 10 |
| Appropriateness & Relevance to the Moot | 7 / 10 |
| Quality of Content & Writing | 5 / 10 |
| Overall evaluation | 45 / 50 |
| 78 / 100 |
Feedback It took me until the end of reading this proposal before I understood what would be presented. The contents of this presentation will most certainly be beneficial to the participants of the Moot. However, please reword the proposal to explicitly state what will be presented in the first part of the abstract. Basically, the final sentence should be among the first few sentences. Then the details of how you accomplished this project can add further clarifications. Other than improving the clarity of the abstract, I recommend acceptance of this proposal.
Peer Review 2
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|
| Clarity of Submission | 10 / 10 |
| Presentation Length | 10 / 10 |
| Originality of Submission | 10 / 10 |
| Appropriateness & Relevance to the Moot | 10 / 10 |
| Quality of Content & Writing | 10 / 10 |
| Overall evaluation | 50 / 50 |
| 100 / 100 |
Feedback I think this will be a fascinating presentation. The 40-minute presentation time is appropriate because of the amount of material the presenters will be covering. Even with 40 minutes, they will need to be careful not to get bogged down in explaining the setup of the randomized course and rolling deadlines. Those two points could be a workshop on their own.
Peer Review 3
| Criteria | Assessment |
|---|
| Clarity of Submission | 10 / 10 |
| Presentation Length | 10 / 10 |
| Originality of Submission | 10 / 10 |
| Appropriateness & Relevance to the Moot | 10 / 10 |
| Quality of Content & Writing | 10 / 10 |
| Overall evaluation | 45 / 50 |
| 95 / 100 |
Feedback This is the kind of research that needs to be done. Will look forward to seeing this.
- Peer review notes査読メモ
Thanks for your submission!
Your proposal has been accepted.
We look forward to seeing you at the conference in February.