A case study of the development of WebPA: An online peer-moderated marking tool

Peer moderation of group work in higher education is rapidly advancing through the use of technological developments and is increasingly being informed by pedagogical research. The highly successful WebPA online assessment system has gone through a number of development phases over its 15-year history and has now evolved into a relatively mature and flexible tool for facilitating group work. This paper presents a case study of the approaches that have been used in the system's development from the technical perspective, and describes how the scope of the project has massively expanded and that the development has been continually backed by a sound and wide-ranging pedagogy. The benefits of using the online system are shown to be underpinned throughout by examples of good practice in the supervision of academic group work. A critical evaluation of the tool and surrounding pedagogical practices highlight future areas for technical expansion.     

Swapping documents and terms

Experiments were conducted to explore the impact of combining various components of eight leading information retrieval systems. Each system demonstrated improved effectiveness through the use of blind feedback, also known as pseudo-relevance feedback, a form of query expansion. Blind feedback uses the results of a preliminary retrieval step to augment the efficacy of a secondary retrieval step. The hybrid combination of primary and secondary retrieval steps from different systems in a number of cases yielded better effectiveness than either of the constituent systems alone. This positive combining effect was observed when entire documents were passed between the two retrieval steps, but not when only the expansion terms were passed. Several combinations of primary and secondary retrieval steps were fused using the CombMNZ algorithm; all yielded significant effectiveness improvement over the individual systems, with the best yielding an improvement of 13% (p = 10⁻⁶) over the best individual system and an improvement of 4% (p = 10⁻⁵) over a simple fusion of the eight systems.     

Caffeine use in a Super Rugby game and its relationship to post-game sleep

Objective: To examine the relationship between regular game-related caffeine consumption on sleep after an evening Super Rugby game. Methods: Twenty elite rugby union players wore a wrist-activity monitor to measure sleep for three days before, three days after and on the night of an evening Super Rugby game (19:00–21:00). Players ingested caffeine as they would normally (i.e. before and sometimes during a game) and saliva samples were collected before (17:00) and after (21:30) the game for caffeine concentration. Results: Compared to the nights leading up to the game, on the night of the game, players went to bed 3?h later (23:08?±?66?min vs 02:11?±?114?min; p?p?p?p?p?p?=?.06) on game night. Conclusion: Caffeine consumption before a Super Rugby game markedly increases post-game saliva caffeine levels. This may contribute to the observed 3.5?h delay in time at sleep onset and the 1.5?h reduction in sleep duration on the night of the game. This study highlights the need for a strategic approach to the use of caffeine within a Super Rugby team considering the potential effect on post-game sleep.     

Home advantage in the Australian Football League

The results of this study on home advantage in Australian rules football demonstrate that individual clubs have different home advantages. Traditional measures of home advantage as applied to whole competitions such as percentage of games won, and alternative measures such as average margin of victory for the home team, are calculated. Problems with these measures are discussed. Individual home advantages for each team are obtained using a linear model fitted to individual match margins; the resultant home advantages are analysed, and variations and possible causes or groupings of home advantage are proposed. It is shown that some models allowing different home advantages for different clubs are a significant improvement over previous models assuming a common home advantage. The results show a strong isolation effect, with non-Victorian teams having large home advantages, and lend support to the conclusion that crowd effects and ground familiarity are a major determinant of home advantage.     

Part and whole practice: chunking and online control in the acquisition of a serial motor task

A four-component aiming movement was used to examine the relative effectiveness of part and whole practice. Following a pretest, participants were assigned to one of three practice groups. Participants in a "Whole" group practiced the four components together as a unit. A "No Overlap" group practiced the first two and last two components of the task, alternating every fifth trial. An "Overlap" group practiced the transition between the second and third components on every trial by alternating practice of the first three and last three components every five trials. Participants in all groups improved significantly from pretest to immediate posttest and maintained their performance over a 24-hr delay. Contrary to the "chunking hypothesis," participants in the No Overlap group improved as much as those in the other two groups. Kinematic data indicated that participants in all three groups learned to use response-produced feedback earlier in the individual movement trajectories. Moreover, participants appeared to acquire a general ability to make transitions between movement components rather than specific transitions. The results suggest that segmented or segmented "overlap" practice regimes may benefit learning movement sequences of short duration.     

RoMEO studies 4: an analysis of journal publishers' copyright agreements

This article is the fourth in a series of six emanating from the UK JISC‐funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open archiving). It describes an analysis of 80 scholarly journal publishers' copyright agreements with a particular view to their effect on author self‐archiving: 90% of agreements asked for copyright transfer and 69% asked for it prior to refereeing the paper; 75% asked authors to warrant that their work had not been previously published although only two explicitly stated that they viewed self‐archiving as prior publication; 28.5% of agreements provided authors with no usage rights over their own paper. Although 42.5% allowed self‐archiving in some format, there was no consensus on the conditions under which self‐archiving could take place. The article concludes that author–publisher copyright agreements should be reconsidered by a working party representing the needs of both parties.