{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01904761904761905, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025974025974025974, 'mean_word_length': 4.958762886597938, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Assessing the Quality of Automatic Summarization for Peer Review in Education

Technology supported peer review has drawn many interests from educators and researchers. It encourages active learning, provides timely feedback to students and multiple perspectives on their work. Currently, online peer review systems allow a student’s work to be reviewed by a handful of their peers. While this is quite a good way to obtain a high degree of confidence, reading a large amount of feedback could be overwhelming. Our observation shows that the students even ignore some feedback when it gets too large. In this work, we try to automatically summarize the feedback by extracting the similar content that is mentioned by the reviewers, which would capture the strength and weaknesses of the work. We evaluate different auto summarization algorithms and length of the summary with educational peer review dataset, which was rated by a human. In general, the students found that medium-size generated summaries (5-10 sentences) encapsulate the context of the reviews, are able to convey the intent of the reviews, and help them to judge the quality of the work.