Difference between revisions of "Milestone 4 Task authoring - Training interventions in Task Authorship for Requesters"

From crowdresearch
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 2: Line 2:
 
== Training interventions in Task Authorship for requesters ==
 
== Training interventions in Task Authorship for requesters ==
  
Outline of a science intro ž  
+
 
 +
== Outline of a science intro ž ==
 +
 
• What’s the phenomenon you’re interested in?  Specific phenomemon! Not just “crowdsourcing”. More like what makes teams of workers effective. ž  
 
• What’s the phenomenon you’re interested in?  Specific phenomemon! Not just “crowdsourcing”. More like what makes teams of workers effective. ž  
  
Line 14: Line 16:
 
4) Does the quality of the tasks created by the requesters who accessed the training improve?
 
4) Does the quality of the tasks created by the requesters who accessed the training improve?
  
The Puzzle ž  
+
 
 +
== The Puzzle ==
 +
ž  
 
• What observation can’t we account for yet? ž  
 
• What observation can’t we account for yet? ž  
  
Line 23: Line 27:
 
One route would be to offer certification such as that offered by Freelancer through completion of assessments, where specifically workers are offered skills subset specific tasks for workers to complete. If they pass, they gain a badge, if they fail, they can try again once they’ve upskilled. It is is time-consuming and costly to create platform specific assessment tasks. Another route would be for collectives of workers to own the skill subset area and manage it. This would include identifying tasks related to that skill subset and offer them for peer review similar to the methods used in MOOC peer assessment on NovoEd or Coursera.  We could run some experiments to identify if either of these are effective ways to assess worker skill level.   
 
One route would be to offer certification such as that offered by Freelancer through completion of assessments, where specifically workers are offered skills subset specific tasks for workers to complete. If they pass, they gain a badge, if they fail, they can try again once they’ve upskilled. It is is time-consuming and costly to create platform specific assessment tasks. Another route would be for collectives of workers to own the skill subset area and manage it. This would include identifying tasks related to that skill subset and offer them for peer review similar to the methods used in MOOC peer assessment on NovoEd or Coursera.  We could run some experiments to identify if either of these are effective ways to assess worker skill level.   
  
The experimental design ž  
+
 
 +
== The experimental design ==
 +
ž  
  
 
Experiment 1:  
 
Experiment 1:  
Line 30: Line 36:
 
• What are the conditions?  
 
• What are the conditions?  
 
• What are you measuring? What statistical procedure will you use? ž  
 
• What are you measuring? What statistical procedure will you use? ž  
 +
 
o 1. Quality of task creation  
 
o 1. Quality of task creation  
 +
 
o 2. What type of training for microtask creation do newcomers want?
 
o 2. What type of training for microtask creation do newcomers want?
 +
 
o 3. Does training in microtask creation achieve good results?  
 
o 3. Does training in microtask creation achieve good results?  
  
The result ž  
+
 
 +
== The result ==
 +
ž  
 
• What (do you imagine) would happen?
 
• What (do you imagine) would happen?
  

Revision as of 13:48, 7 February 2016

Training interventions in Task Authorship for requesters

Outline of a science intro ž

• What’s the phenomenon you’re interested in? Specific phenomemon! Not just “crowdsourcing”. More like what makes teams of workers effective. ž

The economy and workers’ lives have been digitised. Workers want to access opportunities for work as and when suits their individual circumstances. Workers want pathways for learning and skills. They want it geared to their own needs and to their own level of challenge. Workers also want to be able to share their achievements. They want content and resources tailored to their individual needs and accessible for future reference. Workers do not want to be restricted to working in one skill area but for crowdsourcing markets to allow for branching out to other areas of work without barriers. Workers want timely, relevant opportunities for updating their skills

Requesters want their work to be completed to a high standard by workers they can trust have the relevant skills required.

1) Do requesters identify that they require training to acquire skills relevant to certain tasks? If so, what kind? 2) Do requesters want to access training relevant to completion of certain tasks on a crowdsource marketplace? 3) Do requesters access the training? 4) Does the quality of the tasks created by the requesters who accessed the training improve?


The Puzzle

ž 

• What observation can’t we account for yet? ž

Whether or not workers want direct access to skills/knowledge, the best way for the worker to obtain the knowledge/skills whether it be via gold standard tasks, external consumption of learning which is demonstrated through platform badges or certificates, mentoring and/or dual work opportunities, access to examples of good practice,

Outline MOOC research

One route would be to offer certification such as that offered by Freelancer through completion of assessments, where specifically workers are offered skills subset specific tasks for workers to complete. If they pass, they gain a badge, if they fail, they can try again once they’ve upskilled. It is is time-consuming and costly to create platform specific assessment tasks. Another route would be for collectives of workers to own the skill subset area and manage it. This would include identifying tasks related to that skill subset and offer them for peer review similar to the methods used in MOOC peer assessment on NovoEd or Coursera. We could run some experiments to identify if either of these are effective ways to assess worker skill level.


The experimental design

ž

Experiment 1:

• Who are you recruiting? Experienced microtask requesters vs Requesters who have never posted a task on a microtask platform - complete newcomer • What are the conditions? • What are you measuring? What statistical procedure will you use? ž

o 1. Quality of task creation

o 2. What type of training for microtask creation do newcomers want?

o 3. Does training in microtask creation achieve good results?


The result

ž 

• What (do you imagine) would happen?

The overall quality of the task will improve. Workers will spend less time trying to ascertain what the requester is requesting - is this one measurable?? -

Offer templates

Collectives of workers to identify good practice and create task templates. Requesters to use/amend task templates. Tasks submitted go to pool of workers related to the task-type for approval/release to workers.


Future work Link to meta-curriculum and provide triggers to both worker and requesters for the acquisition and updating of skills.

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/horvitz/task_learning_pipeline_chi2016.pdf

https://www.l3s.de/~gadiraju/publications/gadiraju_ectel2015.pdf Training Workers for Improving Performance in Crowdsourcing Microtasks

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/horvitz/task_learning_pipeline_chi2016.pdf Toward a Learning Science for Complex Crowdsourcing Tasks


_________________________

Future experiment:

Experiment 2:

• Who are you recruiting? Experienced microtask workers vs Workers who have never completed work on a microtask platform - complete newcomer • What are the conditions? • What are you measuring? What statistical procedure will you use? ž o 1. Quality of task completion o 2. What type of training for microtask completion is necessary o 2. What other types of

The result ž • What (do you imagine) would happen?



Contributor: @arichmondfuller


Details on Milestone 4:

http://crowdresearch.stanford.edu/w/index.php?title=Winter_Milestone_4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLmr2HvoBKw http://crowdresearch.stanford.edu/w/img_auth.php/3/36/02-01-research.pdf