Ticket #424 (new story)

Opened 13 years ago

Last modified 13 years ago

Teacher ranks a material

Reported by: laszlo Owned by: anonymous
Priority: minor Milestone:
Component: generic Version:
Keywords: Cc:
Time planned: Time remaining:
Time spent:

Description

Note: The best solution for the quality management could be the "trusted group" system. But if a material is not any group, the second solution would be a simple ranking system. The teacher can rank the material with choosing a rank word from a short list (5-10 elements, bad quality, useless material, ..., good quality, useful material). The ranking system should use this avarage quality level, and the number of votes (if many teacher say "this is a good material", it should be good, but if only one teacher say, it is not relevant).

Story: Teacher uses a material. She like it, and vot for it. When an other teacher searches a similar material, searching system will put this material to the begining of the list.

Change History

comment:1 Changed 13 years ago by laszlo

comment:2 Changed 13 years ago by teemu

I don't like ranking. Have never seen a ranking system that really gives some add-value for the users. If you know please send me a link.

I would rather use "Amazon kind of" automated social recommendations:

  • "People who are using this material are also using this material:"
  • "People who made this material made also this material:"

This will more naturally bring up that kind of material for each user that is likely relevant and good for them.

comment:3 Changed 13 years ago by laszlo

OK. It is possible that nobody will use this ranking, but I think we should give the possibility of it.

comment:4 Changed 13 years ago by hans

I think that we should not introduce features that maybe nobody will use. Keep it simple. Less is better.

comment:5 Changed 13 years ago by laszlo

  • Priority changed from major to minor

It is also a request from teachers, but OK, it would be a low priority ticket.

comment:6 Changed 13 years ago by teemu

Laszlo. The reasoning "request from teachers", as a such do not have very much weight in this project. To get some weight we need:

  • reasoning behind it,
  • case studies / examples of good practices and
  • consideration of multidisciplinary team of teacher and experts in groups ending up to the same request.

Then we will make it.

comment:7 Changed 13 years ago by laszlo

If the requests from teachers are not important, why should we validate the system with them? But ask Andrea from WP4 about this thinking. I think, her main koncept is "developers should serve the teachers, they shouldn't specify what the teachers want, teachers can specify our requests".

comment:8 Changed 13 years ago by tarmo

In general: What teachers (or users) want is not the same as what they need. We need to keep this in mind. We are trying to come up with new ways of using IT in education, and thus the suggestions from teachers aren't valid as such. But any ideas that we prototype should be tested with teachers to get their feelings about it.

Ratings could be prototyped quickly to see if there is any value in them, but it would be good to have references to actual cases where ratings have provided this value. The Amazon style social recommendation systems seem to work much better, since users don't need to do anything extra for this information to be stored.

comment:9 Changed 13 years ago by hans

In Estonian participatory design session the teachers were clearly against the rating. They said that they cannot rate a learning material before actually using it. After the lesson they have already other things in mind and probably they will not return to LeMill to rate the material. Also teachers are interested much more in methodical tips about using the material than average rating 3,78 or 4,26.

In Wikipedia uncomplete arcticles are marked as stubs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub

This is similar to draft status in LeMill. In Wikipedia editors mark the article as a stub. Should we have possibility that community can mark materials that need improvements? Changing status from published back to draft?

Shortly: if we have ranking, then only binary ranking (OK/needs improvements), not 1...5 scale.

comment:10 Changed 13 years ago by laszlo

I have also tought a textual ranking, baut not only binary (ex.: useless; not bad, but uncomplete; complete, but not usefull; usefull, complete, good material, etc.). I think it would be good, if the system could assign numbers (only the system use numbers) to use these information, when a teacher search a material. But it is possible theat nobody will use the ranking, for this reason it is not a key feature now. The best quality management would be the "trusted group" system, if the group selforganization can begin.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.