skip to main content
10.1145/2818052.2869122acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Game-theoretic models identify useful principles for peer collaboration in online learning platforms

Published:27 February 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

To facilitate collaboration in massive online classrooms, instructors must make many decisions. For instance, the following parameters need to be decided when designing a peer-feedback system where students review each others' essays: the number of students each student must provide feedback to, an algorithm to map feedback providers to receivers, constraints that ensure students do not become free-riders (receiving feedback but not providing it), the best times to receive feedback to improve learning etc. While instructors can answer these questions by running experiments or invoking past experience, game-theoretic models with data from online learning platforms can identify better initial designs for further improvements. As an example, we explore the design space of a peer feedback system by modeling it using game theory. Our simulations show that incentivizing students to provide feedback requires the value obtained from receiving a feedback to exceed the cost of providing it by a large factor (greater than 7). Furthermore, hiding feedback from low-effort students incentivizes them to provide more feedback.

References

  1. D. Coetzee, Seongtaek Lim, Armando Fox, Bjorn Hartmann, and Marti A. Hearst. 2015. Structuring Interactions for Large-Scale Synchronous Peer Learning. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15). 1139-1152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675251 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Chinmay E. Kulkarni, Michael S. Bernstein, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2015. PeerStudio: Rapid Peer Feedback Emphasizes Revision and Improves Performance. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '15). 75-84. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2724660.2724670 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bram Cohen. 2003. Incentives Build Robustness in BitTorrent. Retrieved Oct 29, 2015 from http://www.bittorrent.org/bittorrentecon.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Daniele Nosenzo and Simone Quercia, and Martin Sefton. 2015. Cooperation in small groups: the effect of group size. Experimental Economics. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-013-9382-8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. William Wu, Constantinos Daskalakis, Nicolaas Kaashoek, Christos Tzamos, and Matthew Weinberg. 2015. Game Theory based Peer Grading Mechanisms for MOOCs. In Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '15). 281-286. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2724660.2728676 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. González-Brenes, José P., Huang, Yun. 2015. Using Data from Real and Simulated Learners to Evaluate Adaptive Tutoring Systems. Proceedings of the Workshops at the 18th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education AIED 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CSCW '16 Companion: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion
    February 2016
    549 pages
    ISBN:9781450339506
    DOI:10.1145/2818052

    Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 27 February 2016

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • abstract

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

    Upcoming Conference

    CSCW '24

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader