MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implementation of a mobile peer assessment system with augmented reality in a fundamental design course

2014· article· en· W29166519 on OpenAlexaff
Kuo-Hung Chao, Chung-Hsien Lan, Kinshuk Kinshuk, Kuo-En Chang, Yao-Ting Sung

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Management & E-Learning An International Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViewpointsAugmented realityPeer assessmentComputer scienceProcess (computing)Virtual realityHuman–computer interactionRepresentation (politics)MultimediaRubricMobile deviceQuality (philosophy)Interpretation (philosophy)Mathematics educationPsychologyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes a framework that incorporates mobile peer assessment and augmented reality (AR) technology to enhance interaction and learning effectiveness. According to the framework, a mobile AR peer assessment system has been developed to facilitate students to improve work interpretation, frequently interact with peers, represent their thinking and reflect upon their own works anytime anywhere. Moreover, the mobile AR technology provides personalized and location-based adaptive contents that enable individual students to interact with the mixed reality environment and observe how works are possibly applied to the real world in the future. In a fundamental design course, students used the system to acquire sufficient information in indoor and outdoor situations and mark peers’ work accurately based on appropriate assessment criteria. The experimental results showed that the system really assisted students in acquiring useful information, proposing their viewpoints, and further fostering critical thinking skills and reflection. During the process of interviews, most students made positive responses and provided meaningful suggestions. The system allows students to concentrate on observing and understanding the relative explanation and representation of works within a combined real–virtual environment and apply appropriate assessment criteria that produce sufficient assessment results to mark peers’ works. Rich feedback can encourage students to reflect upon their own works and improve the quality of their works.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Management & E-Learning An International JournalSame topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207