Sometimes, the upvotes/downvotes you receive on RG could be a useful indication of
what the listeners are thinking. It is almost as if you are reading their minds, without
actually having them talk to you. The effectiveness of this system comes from its
simplicity. Only two options are allowed: UPVOTE, DOWNVOTE.
I found that, when we have an inexperienced student who is preparing the presentation of a new paper we will present at a conference, (s)he has to build experience in understanding what the listeners are thinking, or, what sounds good and is presented well, and what doesn't. I am wondering if an RG-like simple voting system for student presentations would be possible, where, every listener (say, 10, 20 of them) has an upvote and downvote button. That way, the student gets a good idea about the presentation, and tries to improve his/her presentation on the next round. Is this practical ? Any thoughts ?
Tolga, you are right. The voting system should be sort of grading system per entity/metric for the presentation. I usually grade based on 10 metrics and I invite my students to grade the same presentation as well. The overall average for students' grade is worth 40% while my average grades is 605 worth, this way I get the grade per student.
So, a tool to grade students is possible using an audience grading system. Such system is more comprehensive than the RG simple up or down.
Dear Dr. Tolga Soyata, It will be an interesting debate. I am in favor of the idea.
Afaq, electronically, it is very easy to implement this voting system. Each button will be a wireless one, which shouldn't cost a lot. The RECEIVER should be in front of the presenter, which aggregates the votes and displays two numbers : UPVOTE COUNT/DOWN VOTE COUNT.
For all I know, I have enough circuit components to implement this voting system in my circuits lab ... I am adding this response, since some people might think, it is a big deal to technologically implement it ... It is not ...
I found that, showing SMILY and FROWNY faces to the students during the presentation is not enough to train them to be good presenters :)
If your classroom has access to a public WiFi network you could set-up a simple web server hosting an even simpler PHP application which would be accessed via IP address (or if an Intranet DNS is available via a in-house domain).
1. When students target this IP (domain) from their web browsers on phone, tablet or laptop, they are presented with a list of courses.
2. They log in with their student index number, username or any ID generally used at your University for student portals.
3. They find your course in the course list and then they click on it to open the presentation list.
4a. They are then presented with a list of presentations currently being held at in the classroom and they can click to vote (up/down) on those that have been completed or the one currently being presented by other students in front of the class.
4b. Or, you can make it so that only the currently held presentation is available for voting, not the past ones (retroactively). The teacher would have to "check" those that are active at real time to enable/disable them in the list.
5. When they click Up/Down vote for the presentation they want to rate their vote is remembered. One vote per student (recorded by ID, username, index etc.)
Displaying results:
Every presentation is then displayed with the corresponding number of likes/dislikes (names, IDs or indices of students who voted up/down don't have to be displayed), just the information.
This is a sample implementation that is possible.
My University used a similar method for scoring student projects. Students would do a project in teams and would present it to their peers in class. At the end of each presentation their colleagues would fill out a pool about their presentation. Marks from 1 do 5 for different elements of the presentation (slides), the work (solution) and the presenters (students - vocal, gesture and other impressions).
It was short lived for some unclear reason. I liked this solution when I was a student.
Milan, I have one comment for your answer : GENIUS :) You just saved me $100's :)
:) I'm glad to have been able to help you.
If you need more info on possible solution to the implementation I would be more then glad to suggest possible ways to implement this based on my experience in development of software and systems for interacting with students in or out of the classroom.
Dear Dr. Tolga Soyata, @ our place we can also help in your project. We have a strong group in embedded system design and programming.
Dear Tolga, It is really interesting. And need to established. I am currently organizing series of international conferences in India in 2014. For these conferences , I can implement this model as an online version using PHP/XML where every user can login and do the same as RG. I can share the link here once final system is deployed.
EMS, I totally agree, but, 5/5 will be a really weird response. In fact, that says something too :
*** 5/5 means YOUR PRESENTATION LEFT MIXED-BAG FEELINGS :) ? right ?
*** 7/0 out of 10 voters will say , PRETTY GOOD.
*** 10/0 means AWESOME ...
*** NO VOTES means, "we didn't even understand what you are talking about ?
*** 2/0 means, VERY FEW PEOPLE GOT IT, AND THEY THOUGHT IT WAS GOOD, BUT, YOU BETTER THINK ABOUT GETTING YOUR MESSAGE TO THE OTHER 8 PEOPLE ...
*** 0/10 means ... dude, you better re-think this proposal :) or, start over :)
In the end, let's let the NEURAL NETWORK in the HUMAN BRAIN decide what it means ... Human brain is excellent at this kind of REINFORCEMENT-LEARNING ...
A specific score doesn't matter ... Most important think is for the student to try to IMPROVE his/her skills ... Please note that, this voting system is not meant to be a REPLACEMENT for the verbal comments ... but, rather, a SUPPLEMENTARY QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ... that should provide additional help ...
EMS, sometimes it takes a little bit of time for people to pickup on some questions ... A lot of people just put their publications up there, and do not really engage in conversations etc ... I have experienced very similar things when I asked very sophisticated questions ... Almost no response ... I try to ask questions that can be answered by a broader audience ...
===============
Also, on the contrary, I found conversations that are very deep down. You just have to keep trying . I can guarantee you, It IS RESEARCHGATE + SOCIALGATE :)
As per answer to your previous question : like I said, they WILL learn something. But, this voting system should only be a SUPPLEMENT, not THE ONLY form of evaluation ... Interpreting what that score means is a different ball game than the score itself ... right ?
SM Subramaniam, and Milan Tair,
I have a question. Milan says that, a system is available ... In fact, I see the SQL program ... Milan, are you saying that, this system IS AVAILABLE, and you will allow the usage of it FOR FREE ? or, is it FOR SALE ?
Dear Tolga, as I m planning to develop such system web based ( Distributed ). I am planning to customize that with respect to our conferences policies. I can share the system as an open source to this forum once it is done. I am glad to do it.
Dear Dr. Tolga Soyata, We should talk about the rubrics of components of the voting. If you wish I can work on it.
@Tolga Soyata. No, a system exactly like the one you need is not available, but it could easily be built. The SQLs in the document are my quick draft based on what you have said you'd need it to have. So, that was just my quick sketch.
If you want, I could make a simple PHP app with a sketch MySQL database for you to try out. After that, you could continue its development with your IT team domi.
Of course, for free.
@Tolga Soyata: Here is a working PHP application with a sample database structure and data. You can run it on any local web server on your PC to try it out. Look-up XAMPP web server to do your testing.
Read the READ ME.doc file to learn how to configure and use the portal.
The demo portal does not have a CMS, so data management has to be manually done through a MySQL database manager of your choosing.
Afaq, going back to your 'rubrics' comment, I have some answers: I envision having different QUESTIONs in the voting. I envision two or three questions max. Remember that, the effectiveness of the RG voting system comes from its simplicity. Once you start getting into scales like 1...10 etc . the effectiveness disappears, since it is no longer SIMPLE., This is why Facebook and RG boiled it all the way down to BINARY (Yes/No) :) Like/Dislike
I think even TOO MANY QUESTIONS is dangerous. Aside from RUBRIC, let's talk about the application setting of this. I think it will be a lot more effective if it is LIVE, meaning that, may be, the listeners vote AS THE PRESENTER IS PRESENTING.
Since each presentation typically has 3, 4, or 5 different OUTLINEd sections, may be, they get voted section by section ? The point of this is to give a good feeling to the presenter to improve his/her presentation skills (which is related to COMMUNICATION skills).
I am responding to EMS's comment about "but they will not learn anything". This got stuck in my mind. I don't envision the purpose of this voting system being LEARNING. Here is the scenario I envision: Let's say, the adviser (myself) and the student already had a paper ACCEPTED at a conference. Instead of going to present them myself all the time, I let the student do it this time. The student most definitely has the KNOWLEDGE. Otherwise, (s)he wouldn't be a co-author ! But, (s)he needs to brush up on his/her skills in PRESENTING. This requires understanding the listener's mindset (almost, read their minds). When humans communicate with each other, words are only 40% of the tool, another 40% is BODY LANGUAGE, and 20% is INTONATION (the voice of your tone, etc). This means that, a good presentation is far more than KNOWLEDGE.
Do you guys agree ?
@Tolga Soyata. Interesting idea. I think there are many methods to enhance the voting system that makes the evaluation not just scored based. For example, the voter can be classified according to his/her expertise in the community. For instance, in academic life, we can report the voting results as:
Students(100) 70 Yes, 10 No, 20 No option
Professors (4) 2 Yes, 1 No, 1 No Option
overall (104) 72 Yes, 11 No, 21 No option (ignore the expertise)
and so forth..
This type of reporting will tackle different guidance levels. I think it summarizes both the understanding of students and the feedback from experts.
Mohammed, this is very interesting. What you are saying is as follows:
STEP 1) PRE-CLASSIFY VOTERS according to some criteria.
STEP 2) come up with a few Asseessment points (almost, the rubric Afaq Amad was mentioning).
STEP 3) rubric could include : TECHNICAL QUALITY, PRESENTATION QUALITY, ORGANIZATION, I do not want too many ... Just 2, 3 will be Ok
STEP 4) ASSIGN WEIGHTS to each vote depending on each voter, based on their expertise. For example, if I am an 3/5 expert in the field, my vote gets multiplied by 3, if you are 5/5 expert, your vote gets multiplied by 5
STEP 5) It is extremely easy for the software to multiply these votes with runtime numbers. Milan already got the software working :)
Am I understanding you right ?
@Tolga Soyata. Yes , perhaps the weight could be setup by the admin (according to the type of presentation) , next, adjust dynamically by software. Perhaps, some combinatorial interaction between I/O parameters (expertise, total number, T.Q., P.Q., , and Organization). The reporting could be done in real time (e.g, simple combinatorial lookup table and adjust the total number during the voting process). In doing so, a nice feature can be added, as long as the voter can see the impact of his/her vote on the result (before and after voting with some synchronization for consistent results (in the case of two voters vote simultaneously) .
Adding multiple questions and weights is not a problem for the proposed application. With minor modifications it could present 2-4 questions, accept votes (marks in this case) and latter on multiply by weights assigned to each user (student/professor) for every field (course in our case). The formula is pretty straight forward and could be easily implemented.
@Tolga Soyata: Have you made some progress in setting up a framework for this project? Questions (rubrics), time restraints for when the poll will be active during and moments after the presentation ends, etc?
Hi Milan,
I have another Ph.D. student coming in February. This time of the year is crazy for us, with proposals, and end-of-semester projects ... My lab will have a fresh new set of students, and I am renovating it. February-MArch is when I will be able to allocate some time into this. Thank you very much for your interest in this project. Your web-based idea was wonderful.
Thank you. Please keep us informed on the implementation and of any developments in the system's performance and results.
Dear all dignities and Professors
Yes the voting system might be lead much more to RG.
Dear Dr. Tolga,
Because of its inherent simplicity, relatively low cost, ease of use by the user the optical scanning is better.
@Afaq Ahmad: Could you be more specific? Do you mean scanning bar codes from ID cards? How would up/down voting be implemented then? If not this, then what did you mean by optical scanning? Do you perhaps mean analysing camera frames for raised hands for questions "Who votes up?" and "Who votes down?".
Dear Tolga,
Your idea is good. However, it is questionable whether students are willing to vote on their friends? Or how right would be this voting?
Just Up or Down votes give the presenter too little information to be truly useful. Along the lines of the suggestions by Mohammed would be needed for maximum value. If you are really going to trust your students then including the names of the voters is a good idea for the presenter to follow up to get more info from a voter about the specifics.
In a slightly different direction, if the point of this is improvement rather than assessment, then don't use up of down votes at all, just ask for suggestions for improvement. It minimises ad-hoc or biases voting, and positions students to see what they are doing as only supportive.
Dear Tolga
This voting system has the characteristics of ARS (Audience Response System) and is widely used in the events of trauma orthopedics.
I think it is more efficient when we do a prior question to the audience, such as what level of knowledge on the subject to be presented and after the presentation if that conference brought more information.
It is a system that works very well, but it has two drawbacks: the cost of this system and if the student would be able to meet this challenge?
Andras, the purpose of the voting is not to ASSESS a student's performance, but, rather, to help them to practice their presentation skills and get some sort of a FEEDBACK. We come up with this issue all the time. We have a conference paper accepted, and the student has to prepare for it. In this case, this "automated" feedback is some kind of a response. Clearly, the current system is fine: we take notes during the presentation, and let them know about our observations ... however, there is no time for 10, 20 people to discuss their findings. The VOTING gives a quantitative indication, and the professor could go over why the score was low, etc. and how to improve it.
We have an internal joke here, at the university:
We say : "You would rather look bad to US then the rest of the world :) " . We are friends and family, and we are trying to improve your presentation. The rest are listening to you, and trying to understand you.
The purpose of these INTERNAL (i.e., friends and family) presentations is that, when somebody is new to presenting a paper, they will be jittery, nervous, etc. This is always the case.
@Mark, @Nelson, I realize that , the question is a little too generic. But, the scenario I have in mind is this: The "Voters" are in the "same team". Assume , my research team, composed of undergrads, MS and Ph.D. students. So, their motivation is IMPROVING THE SKILLS OF THE PRESENTER.
Why would they be motivated to do that? Because, tomorrow, they will present too !! They know that, if they have the correct "response," tomorrow, somebody else will have a good response, so, the entire team will improve.
However, if the purpose of this was to GRADE (i.e., ASSESS) one's presentation, and the results were going to be used in, some kind of GRADING, I completely wouldn't use this idea ... OR, the voters should be the teachers, instructors, and professors ... Then, it might have a value ...
Do you agree ?
Dear Tolga
Totally agree. Life is a constant learning and we need tools that allow continuing education.
Best regards
Tolga,
I guess that every body on RG uses the up voting in different way.I up vote only a minority of the post I read. Those that bring something new that I particularly agree. Sometime, it is a way to communicate the message of my agreement. Sometime it is a reward for the special spirit or the high character I detect in the person. It has several different meanings. I never down voted a post . I would either ignore it or respond to it with a post. If I had to use voting for student presentation, I would prefer a numerical system: -1 to 10 where -1 would be highly exceptionally bad and 10 would be highly exceptionally good.
I think it is an excellent idea. You can use RG just as it is. The student introduces the topic of his presentation in the question section, the question can be phrased in terms of the research or presentation objective. Then the student adds say 15 slides in 15 answer boxes, as they take links, pictures etc. These boxes are clearly marked with a number 1-15. Those who participate then just score the boxes individually by ticking up or down, and write a single box response containing their main evaluation remarks.
Dear Sir,
Dr. Tolga Soyata Sir,
Sir, it is a very common issue that now days , students are preparing their presentation of paper in a very nice way (in the form of LCD / OHP / Transeference/ Board ) , it is actually 100% better than taught teachers. But , matter of the paper should be verified basically - such as title, abstract , introduction , preliminaries , paper contents and references. Overall of this preparation there is a very big step , i.e. if public audience ask the question , she/ he should easily reply to that question. This is the main issue of the presentation of a paper. With all above noted characters , if she/he present a paper , then 100/% upvoting by any voting system.
We, Professors / Supervisors/ Guides/ should train them basically in such a way that is presentation would be overall good and to get upvoting it.
Thanks and regards
Dr.Govindappa Navalagi
@ Tolga, I think it's a great idea! It will not assess the student but will give just an idea, whether his presentation was liked by the audience or not ! I agree with such a system. It can help one to better a performance :))
There is one important point that I dare say should have to be added before such a system of evaluation is introduced. The reasons of down-voting a performance should be explained by the down-voters, after the evaluation process is over if necessary, so that the student concerned does not have to wonder why at all the performance was down-voted.
Yes It is a good idea because it will give an indication of the amount of understanding the student gsave to the audience
Hi folks, I think many people are agreeing that, the entire concept of VOTING is a subjective process. Therefore, Down votes, and up votes can provide a quantitative measure of some sort, but, there needs to be an explanation in the end. I agree 10000% :)
For this RG-like-student-voting to be effective, there needs to be an explanation in the end. I believe that, even that explanation is subjective. However, please note that, when we are preparing a presentation for a conference, we ARE preparing to present our ideas to a subjective group of folks ... So, that being the case, it is not a bad idea to expose the student to that process ahead of time ...
Dear Tolga, 10000%, carneval in rio! Wonderful exaggeration.:-))))), your math teacher needs an aspirin!
Dear Professor Krieger,
In fact, in the RG voting process, the reasons why either an answer or a question was down-voted are not supplied. That is the system, and we should have no objection in this regard.
However, in an evaluation system, such a voting process would actually confuse the student concerned because as to why an answer supplied by the student was down-voted would not be clear to him. Further, anonymity of the down-voters in the evaluation process would make the student unable to consult the matter with the persons concerned.
In addition, someone might down-vote the performance of the student on personal reasons too! Therefore, for a student who is not quite popular among the teachers may be down-voted for no obvious reason.
Dear Hermanta, you exactly point out my doubts.
@Xavier: Your explanation is correct, but other students dont use votings formatively, they evaluate and probably create social problems like Hermanta already showed.
Hi folks, I think it is a good idea to HIDE the source of the student votes, whether positive or negative. Again, this is strictly to improve the students' presentation skills by giving them a ROUGH idea ... SOURCE doesn't matter. This will eliminate any social issues .. .What do you think ?
Dear Tolga,
I am and was aware of your good intentions to help students to evaluate themselves and to help them to perform better. I think key factor may be here the perception and attitude of students which are difficult to model and are various according to accepted cultural style.
Often I follow and guide students presentations of undergraduate and masters in giving directions or directly indicating readings of articles or even in small groups sharing the presentation for grants to develop their work. Sometimes in-person meeting, other times by skipe or even by e-learning. I think the evolution of the student requires discussion, reviews, readings, building whose ground is oriented teaching-learning process.
With all due respect Tolga, but I think a "vote alone" is not enough and does not guarantee the guiding student development.
Paula, 200% agreed :) In fact, this has been the general consensus. IT is just an auxiliary tool to provide some sort of FEEDBACK, nothing else. Clearly, the most important thing is the QUALITATIVE understanding of why the "score" was low . But, it is a good conversation starter :)
Do you Agree ?
I think, it's rather effective reflective activity. Why not? Students are strict and just teachers. Besides they will highly appreciate this new method of assessment.In fact, every presentation takes a lot of time, and our task is to listen to and analyze the more presentations the better. This method is a good economy of time. But we can ask every student to write a short essay after presentations "Why do you think, that N is better presenter than NN?"
Yes, I agree and considered an auxiliary tool. But I would have trouble using it because the consequences could be counterproductive. It is my impression ... maybe if I used this tool changed my mind!
Paula and Irina, there is a saying in the US : LESS IS MORE.
Sometimes, that one number could "say a lot" ?
Paula, I have reservations too, but, I think, it is worth a try ?
The previous discussions suggested a very simple web-based tool for the students to go and vote. So, the development of a web-based code should be very quick. Almost everybody these days have a phone with internet access ? I assume ? Or a laptop is fine ?
In the end, a nice relaxed atmosphere, where the focus is to improve presentation skills does the trick. If the student is freaking out about the score etc. :) this won't work :) Well, this is really no different if you didn't use the voting system.
When we are new to presentations, we are nervous. ? right ? then, it becomes a motor skill ... But, any tool that can speed up that process is good ...
Why doesn't you implicate a presenttion guide, with all skills students need for presentation. For voting the other students have to score the presentation from 1 to 5 for each skillpoint. So every student know what he can do in a better way and which skills are already present.
Also I think a good idea is to limit the presentation to 3 min and max 5 slides.
Nebi, i noticed that you say in the question 'Do you think that the features "upvoting and downvoting" introduced by RG are used rationally?' That you don't think that the downvote is used rationally. I think this is also a risk in assessment situations and the results would be even more critical to the presenter than on RG.
This is a kind of peer reviewing (system). There's some (not too much) recent literature about the what's and how's, the pro's and con's of peer reviewing in the context of e-learning (see link below). Just voting could be done, but IMHO it is too coarse and so cries for some sort of follow-up explanation. Why not doing both at the same time, e.g. by working out a SCORING RUBRIC (see e.g. Stevens & Levi 2005 Introduction to Rubrics). Excellent exercise for students to get acquainted with a popular simple form of reasoned verbal assessment! (well, it is not quite so simple to construct a decent scoring rubric in the first place, but that's a different issue).
My own experiences with peer reviews (without use of any moden ICT) are mixed. In my classes on software engineering, students work in groups and produce all sorts of 'artefacts' as part of a genuine software development project: requirements specs, analytical models, software designs, test specs, etc.. In addition, each team has a co-team, which acts both as a 'external adviser' and as a peer reviewer. The reviews are mostly based on a scheme of quality requirements and criteria that I provide beforehand. Some co-teams take it seriously and deliver a comprehensive, balanced review of the artefact as well as of the group dynamics of the team that they are reviewing. Other co-teams don't recognize the value of reviewing, and write a useless text. Moreover, if you don't give them adequate feedback, it may happen, that some teams deliver the same review text again for the next artifact. Nevertheless, most students get to see the value of peer reviewing when asked for a 'lessons learned' self-review at the end of the course.
This is my personal experience. Other teachers/assessors may have completely different experiences, depending upon cultural and educational context e.g. course contents.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1591409659/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
Mark,
I presume that your answer is for question asked by Ahed Jumad Alkhatib:
Do you think that the features "upvoting and downvoting" introduced by RG are used rationally?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_that_the_features_upvoting_and_downvoting_introduced_by_RG_are_used_rationally
I'm late to this discussion but it occurs to me that the functionality being discussed is a combination of many freely available polling & backchannel tools -- especially, if it's real-time feedback you are after (rather than rigorous assessment). See for example
http://backchan.nl/
https://todaysmeet.com/
http://www.polleverywhere.com/
http://www.smspoll.net/
Also: http://www.google.com/moderator/
What we usually do here, is to give students a monthly presentation time.
All participants give their comments like if the presentation was good, wasn´ t much in details, etc. some presented experience scientist, give further hints, to make the presentation clear. Students like this system. I think, such an online tool could work
as good- we just need some test- runs.
@ Patrick Low : "To me, I don't care about points, scores or rankings as long as I get the meanings/ interpretations and understanding."
I see what you mean and fully agree given the right context. However, the implied context is a very special one (from my generalist point of view), in short: strictly formative assessment of a single assignment performed by a single student. Reading or hearing the result of the assignment, e.g. a seminar paper or
In (my) practice, the context is fundamentally different, and so I need scores (which *are* rankings on quality criteria, not between students), as long as mathematics (Fuzzy Logic) doesn't provide a means to "calculate" with linguistic descriptions (Prof. Novák, Czech Republic, is working on that, but a practical tool will yet take many years, I guess).
What is my context? There may be up to 18 distinct assignments, each to be assessed. There are traditional tests (questions & answers), individual research projects and several group projects of distinct types. Results of group projects have to be distributed among the members, because I need individual assessments at the end. The assignments are spread out over a full year. The assessments are used both in a formative way and in a summative way. At the end there shall be a single score which is then transformed into a special grade (transformation rule dictated by university).
All this isn't manageable any more, if the assessments would not end with points, scores or rankings. I use scores lying in the interval between 0 and 1, because I can then apply the well-defined operations of Fuzzy Logic. Others may use points or rankings, but they have to construct their own assessment schemes (rating, aggregating, desaggregating), which usually comes out very *ad hoc*, so they will have problems with explanation and justification.
So you see: context and purpose force you sometimes to deal with points, scores or rankings of some sort. If you don't, you're back to holistic assessment, which is a sort of magic, because the whole process of combining many different observations and judgements occurs in the minds and hands of the assessor. If he or she is a good magician, that's fine and we'll be fascinated by his or her assessment performance, because we don't understand how he or she does the trick.
But as we know, good magicians are a rarity. Especially I wouldn't recommend unexperienced teachers to proceed as if they were good magicians. There is no Silver Bullit of Assessment: it's hard work, especially in the beginning! Start with thorough Analytic Assessment, i.e. learn the tricks one by one. I promiss: some say you will have 'internalized' it all, and you will be able to do it holistically. But it's a stony way up to the heaven of magicians ...
I agree with Paul. I was reading along the different ideas and I like to share what I do. First, the up-vote and down-vote system does not provide the scores and ranking necessary according to the formative or summative nature of the assignment as required by accreditation schemes and learning outcomes. So, according to Paul the context and scoring schemes have to be very clear.
Presentations that I assign are timed 7 minutes per student. As for the grading I score based on a ruberic of 10 dimensions. Moreover, I allow my students to grade their peers and I count the average as 40% of the presentation grade while I also grade based on 60%. Therefore, every student obtains their grade as indicated.
Dear Tolga
I think its a good idea for beginners (if they were evaluated by experts) , as you mentioned above, but for researchers who have experiences (if they were evaluated by their peer) , moody (unfair) voting is a big problem!
Regards
I like this discussion and thank dr. Soyata for opening it. I cannot bring more ideas than are here already, very good and thoughtful. But as a student, I may like to bring a presentation, at a certain point, just to see how it feels - or tell my colleagues. So I look forward to the opportunity. :)
Thank Blake ... If anybody is interested in testing this idea, there were some folks that wrote a web-based program. IT is early in the discussions ... You can ask them to give you a login etc. and test it. I am curious about the practicality of this idea ... I think that, it will give some useful feedback to the presenter, but, you never know until you test it ...
It is good, provided objectivity is promoted by clearly defined information and scoring criteria. It is also important to manage the results maturely without students having a low self estem but improving on weak areas.
Excellent approach Narayanan, it was very important to give the time for the process. I like also to add that when I was at Syracuse University, I was part of a program to train teaching assistants and within such experience I had at some point to prepare for a presentation which was later on recorded while I was presenting, then critical analysis was performed by the audience (consisted from trainers and other TAs) and a list of "DOs" and "DON'Ts" was generated before the second chance to present.
Very informative experience but do not know about scoring RG score,What measures should be adopted to learn more research gate and RG score?
The evaluation of RG score takes into account four activities:
1) Published articles: articles which are published in journals with impact factors in research gate site are well tacked into consideration in RG score, but other journals (may have impact factors in other sites) are less.
2) Question's share in RG score depends on the effect on other members. Usually questions which are common to other members and may large number of members share the question hence it gain large RG score! While for specialist (accurate) questions, small number of members may share the question and may gain small RG score
3) Answers: Usually depends on how other members react with and evaluate it.
4) Followers: this activity has less share in the evaluation of RG score
Best regards
According to RG website, the originators present RG as follows: A new way to measure scientific reputation.
The ResearchGate (RG) Score takes all the professor’s research and turns it into a source of reputation.
PUBLICATIONS
QUESTIONS
ANSWERS
FOLLOWERS
When it comes to putting together this RG-like voting system, I prefer to keep voting on the skills separate. For example, "clarity" "intonation" "pace" ... An aggregate score is pointless for improving students' presentation skills, since each student is likely to have one WEAKEST point, which is what (s)he should know specifically about. When you provide an aggregate score, like RG's, it is as if you are trying to solve three unknowns with one equation ! This takes a lot longer than, attacking each presentation skill separately. Everybody will have a different weak point.
Tolga, you are right. The voting system should be sort of grading system per entity/metric for the presentation. I usually grade based on 10 metrics and I invite my students to grade the same presentation as well. The overall average for students' grade is worth 40% while my average grades is 605 worth, this way I get the grade per student.
So, a tool to grade students is possible using an audience grading system. Such system is more comprehensive than the RG simple up or down.
The votes would give the students a general idea how well his presentation was received by the voters. However, based on the voting alone, he/she would find it difficult to identify areas for improvement.
Successful presentations have a number of success factors: apart from the content, it is the storyline, the wording, the way the story is presented including body language, mimics, voice melody, usage of presentation media, the way a speaker relates to the audience – to name just a few.
In my experience there is nothing equally suited to help an inexperienced speaker to improve then personal feed-back and sparring with an experienced presenter.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Computer Engineering