23 3 2017 6 Open Education Research Vol. 23 No. 3 Jun. 2017 1 2 1 2 1. 100875 2. 100875 PPT G434 A 1007-2179 2017 03-0096-09 Coursera Edx MOOC 100 2 3- social network services SNS 4 2008 2009 2017-03- 13 2017-04- 20 DOI 10. 13966 /j. cnki. kfjyyj. 2017. 03. 011 wangqi. 20080906@ 163. com 96
. 3. MOOC 2006 MOOC 1. 2014 1997 2014 2010 2006 2014 Automated Text Marker 2014 e-rater Yigal et al. 2014 2012 2. 2011 1. MOOC Coursera Edx 97
. 1 2014 Bandura 1977 1 2. 1 2 3 4 5 3. 2009 2010 2013 Burt 1993 2013 98
. A A A A A A A A 1. 3 1 2 3 4 5 2. 2 2 3 99
. MOOC PC 4 MOOC 4 5 uscore = Si* Trusti / Trusti Trusti i Si ErrorA = Si-uScore /n i Trusti = 0. 3* score + 0. 3* evaluate + 0. 4 * re- Si i n view uscore 6000 userscore score userscore /6000 1 1 evaluate i mean i 100 0. 9 i evaluate mean /100 review score i evaluate i n m 5 i review i score i i Trusti i i 100
. review m /n MOOC 6-8 8 6 3. 7 java + 6 7 mysql html + css 8 javascript + ajax android echarts 6 7 PPT 5 1-6 7-13 SPSS20. 0 Cronbache s Alpha = 0. 883 Cronbache s Alpha = 0. 825 101
. 1. 10 4. 30 0. 675 2. 10 4. 20 0. 422 3. 10 4. 10 0. 568 4. 10 4. 20 0. 632 5. 10 4. 40 0. 699 6. 10 4. 10 0. 568 7. 10 4. 00 0. 471 8. 10 4. 00 0. 816 9. 10 4. 10 0. 316 10. 10 4. 00 0. 943 11. 10 4. 20 0. 422 12. 10 3. 80 * 0. 919 13. 10 4. 00 0. 667 12 4 12 4 MOOC PPT 1 Powerpoint PPT 3 2 10 9 3 4 SPSS20. 0 Spearman 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 75 83 80 82 94 76 77 72 83 75 81 80 88 95 76 85 76 88 102
. Spearman Spearman's rho 1. 000 0. 857 ** 0. 003 N 9 9 0. 857 ** 1. 000 0. 003 N 9 9 Spearman 0. 857 0. 003 9 5 3 56% 4 5 1 Bandura A. 1977. Social learning theory J Organizational Behavior Management 3 4 55-63. competition M. Harvard University Press. 3 J. 58 18 122-130. 6 2011. J MOOC 68-69. 7 J. 3 54-56. 8 J. 11 34-37. J. 27 9 197-199. 11 12 10 22-25. 13 J. 4 11-16. 14 J 15 J. 9 72-78.. Journal of 2 Burt R. S. 1993. Structural holes The social structure of 2014. 4 2013. J. 7 51-56. 5 2009. J. 15 2 27-36.. 3 2006. 2006. 9 2010. 10 2014. MOOC J. 5 83-90. 2014. J. 4 87-93. 2013. J. 2012. 2008.. 4 51-52. 2010. 103
. 16 Yigal A. & Jill B. 2006. Automated essay scoring with e-rater v. 2. 0 J. The Journal of Technology Learning and Assessment 4 2 18-21. 17 2009. 20 2014. Xmooc J. 15 J. 11 44-49. 1 47-53. 18 1997. M.. 19 2014. J. 19 31-38. Design Development and Evaluation of Homework Social Review Tool WANG Qi 1 2 & YU Shengquan 1 2 1. Faculty of Education Beijing Normal University Beijing 100875 China 2. Beijing Advanced Innovation Center For Future Education Beijing 100875 China Abstract Traditionally is always the teacher who conducts homework review carefully one after another. In some aspects this condition leads to teachers high pressure. Moreover due to the high quantity of homework for teachers to review reasonable feedbacks get delayed while the quality of them becomes lower. As a result the evaluation does little to benefit learning and the development of instruction. Self-evaluation and peer review can help improve the condition but they not guarantee the quality of the evaluation while increasing students stress. Social review makes homework review an open social activity for all social members including teachers experts parents and even students with the help of the auto quality guarantee mechanism created by the social review system. All social members can participate in the process of homework review if they are certificated in the system. And with the help of social reviewers teachers become more relaxed and the feedback becomes more timely individual and process oriented. This will finally benefit homework evaluation and students learning. In this study the researchers investigated teachers needs and developed a social review system based on Lcell platform and conducted an experiment to verify the result of the system. The result demonstrats that the social review system provides practical value and is authoritative. It can be helpful in educational practice. Key words social review homework evaluation process-oriented evaluation Learning Cell platform 104