A Metrics Framework for Evaluating Group Formation Asma Ounnas, David Millard, Hugh Davis Learning Societies Lab School of Electronics and Computer Science.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Putting Eprints Software into the User Community An invitation-only international roundtable workshop organised by JISC and the School of Electronics and.
Advertisements

CONCEPTUAL WEB-BASED FRAMEWORK IN AN INTERACTIVE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT FOR DISTANCE LEARNING Amal Oraifige, Graham Oakes, Anthony Felton, David Heesom, Kevin.
University of Southampton EdSpace Hugh Davis, Leslie Carr, Jessie Hey and Debra Morris edspace.ecs.soton.ac.uk.
Semantic Web in Group Formation Asma Ounnas Learning Societies Lab School of Electronics and Computer Science The University of Southampton, UK
UBICOMP-RG BOF II Adrian Friday, Oliver Storz and Nigel Davies Lancaster University & University of Arizona.
Rajinesh Ravendran PhD Candidate Computer Science Discipline Queensland University of Technology INTERACT 2011 Doctoral Consortium Online Banking Customization:
Sunday October 28, www.eprints.org Tim Brody - Stevan Harnad -
Towards a Semantic Modeling of Learners for Social Networks Asma Ounnas, ILaria Liccardi, Hugh Davis, David Millard, and Su White Learning Technology Group.
1 RegionKNN: A Scalable Hybrid Collaborative Filtering Algorithm for Personalized Web Service Recommendation Xi Chen, Xudong Liu, Zicheng Huang, and Hailong.
Computer Performance CS350 Term Project-Spring 2001 Elizabeth Cramer Bryan Driskell Yassaman Shayesteh.
Chapter 14: Usability testing and field studies. 2 FJK User-Centered Design and Development Instructor: Franz J. Kurfess Computer Science Dept.
SE 450 Software Processes & Product Metrics Survey Use & Design.
Virtual Workbenches Richard Anthony Dept. Computer Science University of Greenwich Distributed Systems Operating Systems Networking.
A Heuristic Bidding Strategy for Multiple Heterogeneous Auctions Patricia Anthony & Nicholas R. Jennings Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science University.
The 2001 Faculty Survey Results by question. The 2001 Faculty survey Distributed in February faculty, stratified random sample 783 responses.
Web Usability by Scott Grissom1 Web Usability Scott Grissom Computer Science & Information Systems.
The 1999 Faculty Survey Results by question for Engineering Carl Berger March 21, 2000.
Claret Feedback David Millard, Gary Wills Learning Societies Lab University of Southampton.
Retrieval Evaluation. Brief Review Evaluation of implementations in computer science often is in terms of time and space complexity. With large document.
Arbitrators in Overlapping Coalition Formation Games
Retrieval Evaluation: Precision and Recall. Introduction Evaluation of implementations in computer science often is in terms of time and space complexity.
Technion – Electrical Engineering –Software Lab 3D Geometric Objects Search Lyakas Alexander Instructor: Dr. Sigal Ar Given a collection of search objects.
Quality is about testing early and testing often Joe Apuzzo, Ngozi Nwana, Sweety Varghese Student/Faculty Research Day CSIS Pace University May 6th, 2005.
Retrieval Evaluation. Introduction Evaluation of implementations in computer science often is in terms of time and space complexity. With large document.
Project IST_1999_ ARTISTE – An Integrated Art Analysis and Navigation Environment Review Meeting N.1: Paris, C2RMF, November 28, 2000 Workpackage.
WELCOME ACS Beirut Elementary School Progress Reports.
Electrical Engineering Capstone Courses EE-4BI6 Electrical and Biomedical Engineering  Dr. Hubert deBruin EE-4OI6 Electrical and Computer Engineering.
Overlapping Coalition Formation: Charting the Tractability Frontier Y. Zick, G. Chalkiadakis and E. Elkind (AAMAS 2012)
Template provided by: “posters4research.com” Introduction and relevance Research problem and purpose Research methodology Statistical analysis-Validity.
Computer Networks CEN 5501C Spring, 2008 Ye Xia (Pronounced as “Yeh Siah”)
Project Progress Document Optimization 5 April 2007 Team members: Chris Catalano Chun-Yu Chang Chris Joson David Matthes.
Maximizing Learning Using Online Assessment 2011 SLATE Conference October 14, /12/ P. Boyles, Assistant Professor, Chicago State University,
Outcomes of a National Consortium ICOLC, Rome Oct 12 th -14 th, 2006 Arja Tuuliniemi, Kristiina Hormia-Poutanen.
ITGD4207 Operations Research
Natural Europe Pretest Students (control group) The questionnaire is aimed at collecting information on the features and tools of the Natural Europe project.
Job scheduling algorithm based on Berger model in cloud environment Advances in Engineering Software (2011) Baomin Xu,Chunyan Zhao,Enzhao Hua,Bin Hu 2013/1/251.
Behavioral Science Salary Survey Samuel Romano, Ph.D. & Mark Vogel, Ph.D. Supported by: The Forum for the Behavioral Science and Society of Teachers of.
Welcome to the Usability Center Tour Since 1995, the Usability Center has been a learning environment that supports and educates in the process of usability.
An Energy-Efficient Voting-Based Clustering Algorithm for Sensor Networks Min Qin and Roger Zimmermann Computer Science Department, Integrated Media Systems.
Exploiting Group Recommendation Functions for Flexible Preferences.
Betim ÇIÇO, South East European University (Republic of Macedonia) Marco University of Pavia (Italy)
Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level Test of Categorical Data / Proportion 1.
ComPASS Summary, Budgets & Discussion Panagiotis Spentzouris, Fermilab ComPASS PI.
Project financed under Phare EUROPEAN UNION QUALITY EXTERNAL MONITORING IN THE SCHOOL YEAR 2007 – 2008 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Material produced.
SIF II Briefing Session 21 st September Briefing Session Content SIF Cycle I – overview Funding and arising issues SIF Cycle II – Process for evaluation.
Work package 4 Evaluation, quality and report. Work package 4: Evaluation, quality and report Evaluation strategy: 1. Evaluation of the initial situation.
1 Information Systems Use Among Ohio Registered Nurses: Testing Validity and Reliability of Nursing Informatics Measurements Amany A. Abdrbo, RN, MSN,
Quality Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Meeting Users ’ Requirements for Internet Quality of Service Anna Bouch, Allan Kuchinsky, Nina Bhatti HP Labs Technical.
Similarity Measurement and Detection of Video Sequences Chu-Hong HOI Supervisor: Prof. Michael R. LYU Marker: Prof. Yiu Sang MOON 25 April, 2003 Dept.
Steps in Planning a Usability Test Determine Who We Want To Test Determine What We Want to Test Determine Our Test Metrics Write or Choose our Scenario.
 We have also applied VPI in a disaster management setting:  We investigate overlapping coalition formation models. Sequential Decision Making in Repeated.
IN WHAT WAYS DO PRESERVICE TEACHERS UTILIZED AN WEB-BASED LEARNING SUPPORT SYSTEM? Fethi Ahmet Inan The University of Memphis Soner Yildirim.
So what happened in the election ?. I’m a bit confused by those figures. Harvey got 47.4% of what? Let me explain.
Introduction to System Evaluation IS 588 Dania Bilal & Lorraine Normore Spring 2007.
New Survey Questionnaire Indicators in PISA and NAEP
A Collaborative Quality Ranking Framework for Cloud Components
Decision Making We could use two films here, so we want lots of extra time. What to cut out? Dangerous minds is good hopefully for expectancy and equity.
AAMC Faculty Forward Engagement Survey Results

Data Driven Resource Allocation for Distributed Learning
School of EE and Computer Science
Harmonisation process of anonymisation of microdata
Determinants of Household Allocation of Income in Iceland
Web Service and Fault Tolerance Stratregy Evaluation and Selection
A paired-samples t-test compares the means of two related sets of data to see if they differ statistically. IQ Example We may want to compare the IQ scores.
ROLE OF «electronic virtual enhanced research-engaged student teams» WEB PORTAL IN SOLUTION OF PROBLEM OF COLLABORATION INTERNATIONAL TEAMS INSIDE ONE.
Introduction to Web Authoring
by Herbert A. Simon 유광용, 송경희 기술혁신세미나
Utilising Canvas to create a collaborative learning environment…..
Dr. Kothapati Kumaraswamy Reddy
Presentation transcript:

A Metrics Framework for Evaluating Group Formation Asma Ounnas, David Millard, Hugh Davis Learning Societies Lab School of Electronics and Computer Science The University of Southampton, UK

A Metrics Framework for Evaluating Group Formation Asma Ounnas, David Millard, Hugh Davis Learning Societies Lab School of Electronics and Computer Science The University of Southampton, UK

Group Formation g1g1 g2g2 gNgN Formation in terms of the constraints + Collaboration Goals as a set of constraints Students Instructor Groups Software Engineering: I want all the students to have the opportunity to learn and perform well: No female can be allocated to an all-male group No international student with all home-students No groups should have participants from the same country (international) distribute participants based on previous marks No minorities Groups are to be multicultural Groups are to be balanced in terms of expected performance Constraints are dependent on teachers pedagogy

Constraint-based Group Formation The allocation of participants to groups based on some constraints Collaboration task has a set of goals, each is a set of constraints User has a degree of freedom in choosing the constraints Each constraint has a value Maximize the utility of all constraints within all goals => Optimal formation

Assumptions Every student is a member of some group Non-overlapping group formation All groups have a similar size All formed groups are stable while the formation is not announced by the instructor

Metrics for Group Formation Collaboration task t Groups g Collaboration Goals α Constraints c Participants p Productivity Q(t) Cohort G Formation form {c 1, c 2 } {c 1, c 2, c j } {c 1 } {c 1, c 3 …c L } {g 1, g 2.. g N } c1c2cjcLc1c2cjcL α1α2αkαKα1α2αkαK t form 1 form 2 goalconstraints groupsoutputs

Metrics Summary MetricsParticipantGroupCohort Formation Constraint Satisfaction Quality Perceived Formation Satisfaction Goal Satisfaction Formation Quality Productivity

Formation Metrics (1) MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Formation Metrics (1) 1.Constraint Satisfaction Quality For a constraint c, how well was c satisfied? MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Formation Metrics (1) 1.Constraint Satisfaction Quality For a constraint c, how well was c satisfied? MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity v if c is satisfied, 0 otherwise Group Constraint Satisfaction Quality How well did all group g satisfy c f g,c = {

Formation Metrics (1) 1.Constraint Satisfaction Quality For a constraint c, how well was c satisfied? MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity v if c is satisfied, 0 otherwise Group Constraint Satisfaction Quality How well did all group g satisfy c Cohort Constraint Satisfaction Quality How well did all the groups satisfy c f g,c = {

Formation Metrics (2) MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Formation Metrics (2) 2.Perceived Formation Satisfaction How well was the formation perceived – individuals satisfaction with the allocation to groups (s) MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Formation Metrics (2) 2.Perceived Formation Satisfaction How well was the formation perceived – individuals satisfaction with the allocation to groups (s) Individual Formation Satisfaction Normalized measure from questionnaires. MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Formation Metrics (2) 2.Perceived Formation Satisfaction How well was the formation perceived – individuals satisfaction with the allocation to groups (s) Individual Formation Satisfaction Normalized measure from questionnaires. Group Formation Satisfaction Individual satisfactions of all members of the group MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Formation Metrics (2) 2.Perceived Formation Satisfaction How well was the formation perceived – individuals satisfaction with the allocation to groups (s) Individual Formation Satisfaction Normalized measure from questionnaires. Group Formation Satisfaction Individual satisfactions of all members of the group Cohort Formation Satisfaction Individual satisfactions of all members of all groups MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Goal Satisfaction Metrics (1) MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Goal Satisfaction Metrics (1) 1.Goal Satisfaction Quality How well did the groups satisfy a goal α k within the collaboration task t MetricsPGC F ormation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Goal Satisfaction Metrics (1) 1.Goal Satisfaction Quality How well did the groups satisfy a goal α k within the collaboration task t Group Goal Satisfaction Quality How well the students allocation to that group satisfied α k MetricsPGC F ormation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Goal Satisfaction Metrics (1) 1.Goal Satisfaction Quality How well did the groups satisfy a goal α k within the collaboration task t Group Goal Satisfaction Quality How well the students allocation to that group satisfied α k Cohort Goal Satisfaction How well were all the groups formed in terms of satisfying α k MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Goal Satisfaction Metrics (2) MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Goal Satisfaction Metrics (2) 2.Formation Quality How well were the groups formed in terms of satisfying all the goals of the collaboration task t MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Goal Satisfaction Metrics (2) 2.Formation Quality How well were the groups formed in terms of satisfying all the goals of the collaboration task t Group Formation Quality How well was a group formed in terms of all goals. MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Goal Satisfaction Metrics (2) 2.Formation Quality How well were the groups formed in terms of satisfying all the goals of the collaboration task t Group Formation Quality How well was a group formed in terms of all goals. Cohort Formation Quality How well was the cohort formed in terms of all the goals and therefore task t MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Productivity Metrics 1.Group Productivity Quality How well did the group achieve task t Measure of the quality of the group outcome against an absolute scale defined by the instructor A+A+A+A+ MetricsPGC Formation Constraint Satis Quality Perceived Form Satis Goal SatisfactionGoal Satis Form Quality Productivity

Optimal Formation The optimal formation is the optimal cohort that can result from the set of goals, such that the formation quality metrics are maximized. ….. form 1 form 2 form n g1g1 g2g2 gmgm

Optimal Formation Procedure - Calculating group formation quality Complexity depends on solvers algorithm c1c1 α1α1 c2c2 clcl … αkαk … … Given task t, optimal formation form opt for each formation form for each group g in the cohort C for each goal α in the task t return form opt then form opt form if cohort formation quality > optimal quality calculate cohort formation quality calculate group formation quality calculate group goal satisfaction for each constraint c in goal α calculate group constraint satisfaction

Future Work Evaluating the Metrics Study Questionnaires for data collections Questionnaires for perceived formation quality Data Sample Software Engineering Groups (66 students) Programming Groups (27 students) Evaluating the constraints Web-based group formation system

Thank you :-) Questions? Suggestions? Comments? More info?