E6610pbishopmodule4
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

E6610pbishopmodule4

on

  • 154 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
154
Views on SlideShare
154
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • When looking at assessing web 2.0, there are a number of aspects that need to be addressed. Firstly, why should we bother to use it? Students find it interesting – It can be a motivator for the students in the classes that you teach. This hopefully will lead to better grades for your students. It has proven to be useful (Chruchill, 2009). As I said before it can be a motivator, but even more it have proven to be a useful assessment tool albeit through the limited amount of research that has been completed up to present time. This can be done in a number of ways that I will talk of momentarily. In a world that is technology based, assessing by Web 2.0 tools allows us to practice what we teach. We live in a time where technology or 21 st century learning is paramount. Secondly, what types of assessment can be completed using web 2.0 tools? Teachers can use it for summative assessment. This can be done through wiki’s, blogs, e-portfolios, video assignments, even online test forms. It allows for peer evaluation. Students are able to look at what a student has created for example in the form of a webpage, or said in the form of a blog and thus make formative or more summative evaluation of their work. Much of the literature points to it being a very good mode of self evaluation. For example, when students make a video of themselves, they can then quite easily go back and see what they did well, and what they want to improve upon. Thirdly, What are Web 2.0 tools The oxford dictionary defines web 2.0 as the second stage of development of the Internet, characterized by the change from static web pages to dynamic or user-generated content and the growth of social media. These can be in the form of wikis, blogs, eportfolios, online apps, youtube, facebook, and twitter to name a few.
  • In the following slide I will talk about the methods in terms of how I determined what was relevant to this assignment, and a brief description of how the studies were carried out.
  • To select studies, I searched for journals that met three criteria. First – have the word assessment in the title Second – have them word web 2.0 in the title Third – the journals were only considered if they were peer reviewed.
  • Data was collected in the 10 studies by various means: They were either qualitative, quantitative, Quasi-experimental, or by mixed method Each of the studies included one of the following types of data collection: Interviews Questionaires Reflections Surveys Focus groups
  • When reading the literature 3 themes on assessment using web 2.0 tools came to light: Formative assessment which Wang (2009) refers to as those activities that are used to help students learn and Self assessment which can all be assessed by the use of Rubrics Of the studies that used web 2.0 as a formative assessment tool, the results were consistent stating that it is an effective method of assessment. According to Lai and Eugenia (2011) students found that web 2.0 were useful in developing their abilities learned in their respective course. The research also indicated that many of the participants indicated having learned a great deal through self assessment when using web 2.0 technologies. Terrell et al (2011) reported that “some students were amazed at their achievements and their increase in technical prowess” (p. 856). Finally, rubrics were found to be the best way to grade web 2.0 assessments and thus limit subjectivity, That they allowed for consistency among teachers (Chang and Wu, 2012) and that they were especially useful in assessing wikis (Lai and Eugenia, 2011) and youtube video assignments (Abendroth et al., 2011).
  • As a formative assessment tool it was reported that there are several benefits to web 2.0 technologies: They provide teachers with a new assessment tool that can be used in conjunction with the other assessment tools they have at their disposal. According to Wang et al. (2006), an e-learning environment allows for greater learning since it provides more opportunity for a more diverse type of assessment. Finally the very nature of the assessment through the various types of web 2.0 lends its self to an engaging type of assessment.
  • As a self assessment tool, web 2.0 technologies were identified as having advantages and disadvantages: Students reported that firstly, that they felt web 2.0 assessment were worth while, saying that they felt they had learned a great deal by producing and contributing to web 2.0 technologies. Students found that some types web 2.0 technologies allowed them to think and see what they had produced and then make it better, giving this form of assessment a metacognitive layer. Students also found that the digital footprint left behind for example by a wiki or blog was advantageous since it allowed them to witness how they improved as time went on. The one disadvantage that was noted was that some students did find working with web 2.0 technologies distracting.
  • When web 2.0 tools are evaluated by rubrics, they were found to have many advantages: Firstly they give consistent results amongst different evaluators. They can be made for practically any evaluation. They take out the subjectivity that would otherwise be inherent to the task. Thy are also very fast to use by teachers, allowing them to grade the assessments quicker. The one disadvatage is that they are time consuming to create initially
  • There are three ways that we can go about assess using web 2.0 technologies: First, we can assess through self assessment. The disadvantage of self assessment is that it is difficult to evaluate for teachers. Students reported that their learning increased by using web 2.0 tools as assessment tools. Self assessment is especially useful in the assessment of Wiki activities. Self assessment lends itsself to the use of rubrics. Secondly Peer assessment can also be an excellent tool for assessing Wiki activites and like self assessment is also easily done through the use of rubrics. Evaluation of web 2.0 can also be carried out by the common teacher assessment which can also be assessed with the help of rubrics. As mentioned, rubrics can be used to evaluate all three of these types of assessment. As said in earlier slides, what makes rubrics ideal is that they give consistent and reliable grades regardless of the teacher grading, The only downfall being that they are time consuming to produce initially.
  • The conclusions that were collectively taken from the 10 studies were as follows: Students report that the use of web 2.0 tools as assessment tools creates a positive learning experience, helping students to learn more. Web 2.0 can be assessed by both peer and self type assessments but the best way to assess students when using web 2.0 tools is by making use of rubrics.
  • The implications from this research are as follows: It has been found that in the future, teachers and students alike need to make use of web 2.0 technologies. In order for the assessment of students using web 2.0 to occur the education systems need to have access to technology made readily available, and finally student will learn if web 2.0 tools are used as assessment tools.
  • There were also several limitations that came to light as result of this research: Sample sizes were small for many of the studies. As a result, it is difficult to draw significant generalizations from the data gathered. The may be due in part to the small amount of literature that was readily available on the topic.

E6610pbishopmodule4 E6610pbishopmodule4 Presentation Transcript

  • A presentation by Peter Bishop,A presentation by Peter Bishop, in partial fulfillment for course Education 6610:in partial fulfillment for course Education 6610: Research in Computers in the CurriculumResearch in Computers in the Curriculum Assessment UsingAssessment Using Web 2.0 TechnologiesWeb 2.0 Technologies
  • MethodsMethods
  • FindingsFindings
  • Web 2.0 As Formative AssessmentWeb 2.0 As Formative Assessment
  • Self-Assessment Using Web 2.0Self-Assessment Using Web 2.0
  • Use of rubrics to assess student learning when using web 2.0Use of rubrics to assess student learning when using web 2.0
  • DiscussionDiscussion
  • ConclusionConclusion
  • ImplicationsImplications
  • LimitationsLimitations
  • ReferencesReferences
  • 1.Abendroth, M., Golzy, J, B., O’Connor, E., A.(2011). Self-Cceated1.Abendroth, M., Golzy, J, B., O’Connor, E., A.(2011). Self-Cceated youtube recordings of microteachings: Their effects uponyoutube recordings of microteachings: Their effects upon candidates' readiness for teaching and instructors' assessment.candidates' readiness for teaching and instructors' assessment. Journal of Educational Technological Systems.Journal of Educational Technological Systems. 4040(2). 141-159.  (2). 141-159.   2.Barry, S. (2012). A video recording and viewing protocol for2.Barry, S. (2012). A video recording and viewing protocol for student group presentations: Assisting self-assessment through astudent group presentations: Assisting self-assessment through a Wiki environment.Wiki environment. Computers and EducationComputers and Education,, 5959(3), 855-860.(3), 855-860. doi:10.1016/j.compedu2012.04.008doi:10.1016/j.compedu2012.04.008   
  • 3.Barwell, G. Moore, C. Walker, R., (2011).3.Barwell, G. Moore, C. Walker, R., (2011). Marking machinima: A case study in assessingMarking machinima: A case study in assessing student use of a web 2.0 technology.student use of a web 2.0 technology. AustralasianAustralasian Journal of Education Technology. 27Journal of Education Technology. 27(5), 765-780.(5), 765-780. Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org.au.Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org.au.   4.Chang, C., & Tseng K. (2009). Use and4.Chang, C., & Tseng K. (2009). Use and performances fo Web-based portfolio assessment.performances fo Web-based portfolio assessment. British journal of Educational Technology. 40British journal of Educational Technology. 40(2). 358-(2). 358- 370. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00885.x370. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00885.x
  • 5.Chang, C. C., & Wu, B.H. (2012). Is teacher5.Chang, C. C., & Wu, B.H. (2012). Is teacher assessment reliable or valid for high schoolassessment reliable or valid for high school students under a web-based portfoliostudents under a web-based portfolio environment?environment? Educational Technology & Society,Educational Technology & Society, 1515(4), 265–278. Retrieved from:(4), 265–278. Retrieved from: http://www.ifets.infohttp://www.ifets.info 6.Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of6.Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of web 2.0: using blogs to support teaching andweb 2.0: using blogs to support teaching and learning.learning. British Journal of Educational TechnologyBritish Journal of Educational Technology,, 4040(1),179-183. doi:10.1111/j.1467-(1),179-183. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2008.00865.x8535.2008.00865.x
  • 7.Griffith, S. (2009). Assessing student7.Griffith, S. (2009). Assessing student participation in an online graduate course.participation in an online graduate course. International Journal of Instructional Technology andInternational Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. 6Distance Learning. 6(4), 35-44. Retrieved from:(4), 35-44. Retrieved from: http://www.itdl.org/http://www.itdl.org/ 8.Lai, Yiu Chi and Ng, Eugenia M.W. (2011).8.Lai, Yiu Chi and Ng, Eugenia M.W. (2011). Using Wikis to develop student teachers’Using Wikis to develop student teachers’ learning, teaching, and assessment capabilities.learning, teaching, and assessment capabilities. Internet and Higher EducationInternet and Higher Education.. 1414(1),15-26.(1),15-26. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.06.001doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.06.001
  • 9.Terrel, J., Richardson, J., Hamilton M. (2011).9.Terrel, J., Richardson, J., Hamilton M. (2011). Using web 2.0 to teach web 2.0: A case study inUsing web 2.0 to teach web 2.0: A case study in aligning teaching, learning and assessment withaligning teaching, learning and assessment with professional practice.professional practice. Australasian Journal ofAustralasian Journal of Education Technology, 27Education Technology, 27(5), 846-862. Retrieved from:(5), 846-862. Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org.auhttp://www.ascilite.org.au.. 10.Wang, K. H., Wang, T. H., Wang, W. L.., Huang,10.Wang, K. H., Wang, T. H., Wang, W. L.., Huang, S. C. (2006). Learning styles and formativeS. C. (2006). Learning styles and formative assessment strategy: enhancing studentassessment strategy: enhancing student achievement in web-bases learning.achievement in web-bases learning. Journal ofJournal of Computer Assisted Learning.Computer Assisted Learning. 2222(3), 207-217.(3), 207-217. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00166.xdoi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00166.x