Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Danielle Hu

dblp:199/3021 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Learning and educational technologies · 56% Collaborative and social computing · 44%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing › collaborative learning
classroom collaboration
0.312017
Better Organization or a Source of Distraction?: Introducing Digital Peer Feedback to a Paper-Based Classroom · CHI 2017
Learning and educational technologies › educational feedback
peer feedback
0.312017
Better Organization or a Source of Distraction?: Introducing Digital Peer Feedback to a Paper-Based Classroom · CHI 2017
Learning and educational technologies
educational technology
0.112017
Better Organization or a Source of Distraction?: Introducing Digital Peer Feedback to a Paper-Based Classroom · CHI 2017

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

within-subjects study · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 Better Organization or a Source of Distraction?: Introducing Digital Peer Feedback to a Paper-Based Classroom
abstract
Peer feedback is a central activity for project-based design education. The prevalence of devices carried by students and the emergence of novel peer feedback systems enables the possibility of collecting and sharing feedback immediately between students during class. However, pen and paper is thought to be more familiar, less distracting for students, and easier for instructors to implement and manage. To evaluate the efficacy of in-class digital feedback systems, we conducted a within-subjects study with 73 students during two weeks of a game design course. After short student presentations, while instructors provided verbal feedback, peers provided feedback either on paper or through a device. The study found that both methods yielded comments of similar quality and quantity, but the digital approach provided additional ways for students to participate and required less effort from the instructors. While both methods produced similar behaviors, students held inaccurate perceptions about their behavior with each method. We discuss design implications for technologies to support in-class feedback exchange.
Amy Shannon Cook, Alex Sciuto, Danielle Hu, Steven Dow, Jessica Hammer
CHI3