Difference between revisions of "Milestone 5 Improving Task Authoring with a Project Manager by Team1"
From crowdresearch
(→Task Authorship) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
=== Experimental Design for the study === | === Experimental Design for the study === | ||
| − | |||
=== Measures from the study === | === Measures from the study === | ||
| − | |||
=== What do we want to analyze? === | === What do we want to analyze? === | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ''Contributions'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | @seko - Sekandar Matin, @purynova - Victoria Purynova, @ahmednasser - Ahmed Nasser, @kamila - Kamila Mananova | ||
Revision as of 23:03, 14 February 2016
Contents
Task Authorship
Study introduction
Requesters have an influence on the outcomes of workers, so our hypothesis is that bad authorship leads to a lower outcome quality, because of the ambiguity of tasks and its following misunderstanding. In STUDY 1 we propose a one-part experiment, using a crowdsourcing platform for the experimental environment, where we will test Project Manager (PM) and compare the results in the form of Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results before and after.
Study method
Method specifics and details
Experimental Design for the study
Measures from the study
What do we want to analyze?
Contributions
@seko - Sekandar Matin, @purynova - Victoria Purynova, @ahmednasser - Ahmed Nasser, @kamila - Kamila Mananova
