MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069434918 · doi:10.1115/esda2012-82141

MarkUs: An Open-Source Web Application to Annotate Student Papers On-Line

2012· article· en· W2069434918 on OpenAlexaff
Morgan Magnin, Guillaume Moreau, Nelle Varoquaux, Benjamin Vialle, Karen Reid, Mike Conley, Severin Gehwolf

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricGrading (engineering)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Open sourceWork (physics)Interface (matter)MultimediaWork in processWorld Wide WebMathematics educationPsychologyEngineeringSoftwareProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A critical component of the learning process lies in the feedback that students receive on their work that validates their progress, identifies flaws in their thinking, and identifies skills that still need to be learned. Many higher-education institutions have developed an active pedagogy that gives students opportunities for different forms of assessment and feedback. This means that students have numerous lab exercises, assignments, and projects. Both instructors and students thus require effective tools to efficiently manage the submission, assessment, and individualized feedback of students’ work. The open-source web application MarkUs aims at meeting these needs: it facilitates the submission and assessment of students’ work. Students directly submit their work using MarkUs, rather than printing it, or sending it by email. The instructors or teaching assistants use MarkUs’s interface to view the students’ work, annotate it, and fill in a marking rubric. Students use the same interface to read the annotations and learn from the assessment. Managing the students’ submissions and the instructors assessments within a single online system, has led to several positive pedagogical outcomes: the number of late submissions has decreased, the assessment time has been drastically reduced, students can access their results and read the instructor’s feedback immediately after the grading process is completed. Using MarkUs has also significantly reduced the time that instructors spend collecting assignments, creating the marking schemes, passing them on to graders, handling special cases, and returning work to the students. In this paper, we introduce MarkUs’ features, and illustrate their benefits for higher education through our own teaching experiences and that of our colleagues. We also describe an important benefit of the fact that the tool itself is open-source. MarkUs has been developed entirely by students giving them a valuable learning opportunity as they work on a large software system that real users depend on. Virtuous circles indeed arise, with former users of MarkUs becoming developers and then supervisors of further development. We will conclude by drawing perspectives about forthcoming features and use, both technically and pedagogically.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207