Ascilite workshop web 2 assessment slideshare

575 views
429 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
575
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ascilite workshop web 2 assessment slideshare

  1. 1. Students’ use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education:Good practice in assessment and academic integrity Ascilite Conference Workshop 5th December 2010 Presenters: Jenny Waycott, Celia Thompson, Joan Richardson
  2. 2. Workshop outline1. About the project – who we are, why we’re here2. What’s YOUR interest in participating today?3. Documenting Web 2.0 assessment practices  What have we found out so far?  What are your Web 2.0 assessment practices?4. Group discussions: What do we need to consider to be sure of “good practice” when we use Web 2.0 to assess students?5. Our draft framework & case studies6. Group activity: discussing scenarios of Web 2.0 assessment7. YOUR feedback and where to go for further information
  3. 3. About the projectALTC-funded priorities project (2009-2011):Web 2.0 authoring tools in higher education learning and teaching: new directions for assessment and academic integrity.
  4. 4. Projectbackground
  5. 5. Project teamJenny Waycott (project manager), Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne.Celia Thompson, School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne.Margaret Hamilton, School of Computer Science and IT, RMIT University.Joan Richardson, School of Business Information Technology, RMIT University.Kathleen Gray (project leader), Faculty of Medicine / Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne.Rosemary Clerehan, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University.Judithe Sheard, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University.
  6. 6. What’s YOUR interest in participating today? Please tell usyour name, organisational affiliation, roles / responsibilities, etc. What are your thoughts at this stage about using Web 2.0 to assess student learning in higher education? e.g. “The assessment of student web 2.0 activities is ............. for university learning and teaching”.
  7. 7. Web 2.0 for learning, teaching and assessment in higher education?O’Reilly & Battelle “One of the fundamental ideas underlying(2009, p. 2) Web 2.0 [is] that successful network applications are systems for harnessing collective intelligence ... a large group ofO’Reilly, T., & Battelle, J. (2009). WebSquared: Web 2.0 Five Years On. people can create a collective workSpecial Report for the Web 2.0Summit, 20-22 October , San Francisco whose value far exceeds that providedCA.http://assets.en.oreilly.com/1/event/2 by any of the individual participants”8/web2009_websquared-whitepaper.pdf
  8. 8. Web 2.0 for learning, teaching and assessment in higher education?Kakutani “jump to the summary, the video clip, the sound bite — never mind if context and nuance are lost(2010, in the process; never mind if it’s our emotions, moreparas 13-14) than our sense of reason, that are engaged; never mind if statements haven’t been properly vetted and sourced” “tweet and text one another during plays andKakutani, M. (2010, 17 movies, forming judgments before seeing the arc of the March). Texts without entire work” context. [Book review]. New York Times. “power-search for nuggets of information that http://www.nytimes.co m/2010/03/21/books/ might support their theses, saving them the time of 21mash.html?ref=book s wading through stacks of material that might prove marginal but that might have also prompted them to reconsider or refine their original thinking”
  9. 9. Web 2.0 for learning, teaching & assessment in higher education?• Social web activities can be substantially different from assessment tasks students and lecturers are used to.• Much has been written about pedagogical affordances of social web technologies.• What about assessment?
  10. 10. Project aimsParticipatory approach to supporting good practice inassessment of students’ social web (Web 2.0) activities:1. Documenting how academics are assessing students’ Web 2.0 activities:  Survey and interview teaching academics (September 2009)2. Identifying principles of good practice  Advisory group and national roundtable (November 2009)3. Field-testing guidelines / improving practice  17 case studies in learning and teaching settings (February to June 2010)4. Producing and sharing resources  Watch this space...
  11. 11. Project aimsParticipatory approach to supporting good practice inassessment of students’ social web (Web 2.0) activities:1. Documenting how academics are assessing students’ Web 2.0 activities:  Survey and interview teaching academics (September 2009)2. Identifying principles of good practice  Advisory group and national roundtable (November 2009)3. Field-testing guidelines / improving practice  17 case studies in learning and teaching settings (February to June 2010)4. Producing and sharing resources  Watch this space...
  12. 12. Documenting Web 2.0 assessment practices• Online survey: – 64 Australian academics who have assessed students’ Web 2.0 activities• Follow up interviews with 22 respondents – further exploration of issues around Web 2.0 assessment.
  13. 13. Documenting Web 2.0 assessment practices Field of Study Number of respondents 16Humanities / Society & Culture 15Education 11Information Technology 9Medicine & Health 6Management & Commerce 3Other
  14. 14. Documenting Web 2.0 assessment practices Type of Web 2.0 activity Number of responsesWiki writing 32Blogging/microblogging 31Social networking 17Audio/video podcasting 16Virtual world activities 12Social bookmarking 11
  15. 15. Documenting Web 2.0 assessment practices Number of students Number of responses enrolled in subject Less than 50 21 50-100 10 101-200 9 More than 200 7 69% undergraduate and 31% postgraduate subjects
  16. 16. Documenting Web 2.0 assessment practices How much the assignment is Number of responses worth 01-10% 7 11-20% 11 21-30% 9 31-40% 6 41-50% 9 51-60% 2 61-70% 0 71-80% 3 81-90% 2 91-100% 4
  17. 17. Documenting Web 2.0 assessment practices Intended learning outcomes Number of responsesGeneric or graduate skills or attributes 35Specialised knowledge or skills required in a 29discipline or professionFoundation knowledge or skills preparatory to 28a discipline or profession
  18. 18. What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment ... Open publishingIt’s not unusual for the musician or his manager or someone to make a comment on the blog and to correct misinformation or thank them for an opinion or whatever and I think that is a really important lesson for [students] to learn that whatever they write they’re writing for an audience and if they’re writing for more than an audience of one that has implications
  19. 19. What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment ... Informal writing / communication stylesit’s not a formal writing exercise, the idea is to let them express their thoughts, reflections, interests in the different topics rather than focusing on good grammar and formal sentence structure, which I think tends to constrain a lot of essays.
  20. 20. What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment ... Personal identity and experienceThere a process that goes into them finding their different voices, how to share appropriately, how to write with authority. A lot of them say ‘but I’m just a student’.
  21. 21. What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment ... Co-authoring contentStudents found it challenging to co-create content and collaborate with other studentsHow do you mark assignments when students can change/overwrite each other’s work! Many students who contributed early found that their work was completely lost. How do you manage this process of overwriting and still contributing to the same content?
  22. 22. What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment ... Content managementThere’s an ongoing debate about the accuracy of the information ... are we satisfied that because it passes as an assignment it should go out there? ... What happens if it becomes out of date [...] One of the things I’d like to do would be to have it as an ongoing editable document with staff and students editing it
  23. 23. What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment ... Designing, managing, marking, reviewing the assignment[There is a lot of] work involved in setting it up and making sure all the students know how to do it. If you ask them to write an essay they just go off and write it, you don’t have to spend the first three weeks of the course teaching them about essays
  24. 24. What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment... Designing, managing, marking, reviewing the assignmentI found the bottom third of the class had difficulty thinking about what to post on when it was left completely up to them. ... This time around I’ll try giving them a specific topic each week that they can discuss
  25. 25. What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment ... Designing, managing, marking, reviewing the assignmentThe assessor is not assessing a written document, they’re assessing a page which ... is a whole labyrinth of choices and connections, so they’ve got to actually work their way through
  26. 26. What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment ... Protecting studentsI tell the students over and over again, that it is on the WWW, it’s not associated with the university, be careful what you put up there, make sure you are comfortable with this.
  27. 27. What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment ... Protecting studentsI certainly do what I can to protect [students]. I wouldn’t publish critical comments on their blogs, I don’t let other students know which ones I think are good, bad or indifferent. ... I protect their privacy to that extent.
  28. 28. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices: Your views Would you like to comment on any of the survey/interview data? What about YOUR experiences: have you had similar / different experiences when assessing students’ Web 2.0 activities?
  29. 29. What would “good practice” look like ... ?… when university students are asked to demonstratetheir learning using Web 2.0 activities / authoring tools /attitudes to content production and consumption? Some things to think about: What Web 2.0 allows / enables The assignment, from go to woe Academic policies that pertainSmall groups + report back
  30. 30. Project aimsParticipatory approach to supporting good practice inassessment of students’ social web (Web 2.0) activities:1. Documenting how academics are assessing students’ Web 2.0 activities:  Survey and interview teaching academics (September 2009)2. Identifying principles of good practice  Advisory group and national roundtable (November 2009)3. Field-testing guidelines / improving practice  17 case studies in learning and teaching settings (February to June 2010)4. Producing and sharing resources  Watch this space...
  31. 31. Identifying principles of good practice• International advisory group: 30 members• National roundtable: – participants included academics from diverse disciplines, educational developers, and students. – Discussions aimed to gather recommendations for good practice guidelines• Proceedings available at: http://web2assessmentroundtable.pbworks.com
  32. 32. What would good practice look like? AffordancesAffordances checklist ... • Open publishing • Communication styles and What is an appropriate fit texts between what assessment • Personal identity and is trying to achieve and experience what Web 2.0 can do? • Co-creation, collaboration, crowdsourcing • Content management
  33. 33. What would good practice look like? AffordancesOpen publishing:• Student work can be made easily accessible to an audience of peers for mutual benefit including reviewing and rating.• Review and assessment of student work from outside the university can be invited or anticipated.
  34. 34. What would good practice look like? AffordancesCommunication styles &texts• Web 2.0 assignments can involve frequent short pieces of work employing conversational language and combining audio, video, images & text.• Feedback can be exchanged rapidly, using rating or ranking systems, informal rejoinders, audio, video, images, icons.
  35. 35. What would good practice look like? AffordancesPersonal identity &experience:• Students’ online identity can be different from the student who is recognisable in class.• Students’ social or cultural experiences of web authoring can influence the work they produce for assessment.• Reflection and self-reflection about the idea of identity are prompted by the need to create and express an online identity.
  36. 36. What would good practice look like? AffordancesCo-creation,collaboration,crowdsourcing:• Group work can scale between a small closed group and a large free-to-join learning community• Individual contributions to group work can (sometimes) be distinguished.• Groups can work on large, complex tasks.
  37. 37. What would good practice look like? AffordancesContent management• Students’ assessable work may consist of remixing web content from diverse sources.• Students’ assessable work may be posted on several host sites. Work posted on one site may be syndicated by others and tracked back.• Students can control the content they produce for assessment in accordance with terms of service, end user agreements or other governance policies of host sites.
  38. 38. What would good practice look like? ProcessesProcesses checklist ...How do teachers use Web 2.0 Designto support student, self- andorganisational learning Review Implementthroughout the cycle ofactivities involved in theassignment? Feedback Mark
  39. 39. What would good practice look like? PoliciesPolicies checklist ... • disability • access to IT services orHow can assessment using equipmentWeb 2.0 be made safe and fair • appropriate conductfor students and staff? • identity and privacy • academic honesty and integrity • special consideration • moral rights and copyright
  40. 40. What would good practice look like? PoliciesPolicies checklist ... • disability • access to IT services orHow can assessment using equipmentWeb 2.0 be made safe and fair • appropriate conductfor students and staff? • identity and privacy • academic honesty and integrity • special consideration • moral rights and copyright
  41. 41. Surveyed staff were not always sure whether they were clearly observing assessment policies: some examplesPolicy area % Not sureCopies of students’ marked work are available if there is a need to 20deal with appeals/complaintsThis assignment encourages academic honesty and integrity 20Students’ identity and privacy in online environments are 20safeguardedStudents are provided with timely feedback on marked work for this 20assignmentThis assignment provides for equitable assessment for students with 23a disabilityStudents’ moral right and copyright in work they produce are 27protectedStudents whose work shows evidence of cheating or misconduct are 28formally disciplined
  42. 42. Project aimsParticipatory approach to supporting good practice inassessment of students’ social web (Web 2.0) activities:1. Documenting how academics are assessing students’ Web 2.0 activities:  Survey and interview teaching academics (September 2009)2. Identifying principles of good practice  Advisory group and national roundtable (November 2009)3. Field-testing guidelines / improving practice  17 case studies in learning and teaching settings (February to June 2010)4. Producing and sharing resources  Watch this space...
  43. 43. Field-testing guidelines / improving practice Cinema Studies / Criminal Law17 case studies: Blogging Cultural Studies / Media StudiesDraft guidelines Socialpilot-tested Education bookmarkingin 17 subjects Social networking Languagesat 5 universities Video sharing Business / Economicsin Victoriaduring Semester 1, Photo sharing Communication Design2010 Virtual worlds Languages Accounting / Education Wiki writing Information Technology Languages / Science Combined Information Management Web 2.0 tools Information Technology
  44. 44. Field-testing guidelines / improving practiceCase studies involved...• Introductory workshops• Meetings with researchers, class observations• Examples of marked student work, assessment artefacts, etc.• Focus groups – Staff reflecting on experience – Students’ perspective on using Web 2.0 for assessment in HE
  45. 45. Scenarios of Web 2.0 assessment practices• Read the first scenario in your handout• Find the person in the group with the same scenario• Discuss: What are your thoughts on how assessment was done in this example? What would you do differently?• Report back to group in 20 minutes
  46. 46. Project aimsParticipatory approach to supporting good practice inassessment of students’ social web (Web 2.0) activities:1. Documenting how academics are assessing students’ Web 2.0 activities:  Survey and interview teaching academics (September 2009)2. Identifying principles of good practice  Advisory group and national roundtable (November 2009)3. Field-testing guidelines / improving practice  17 case studies in learning and teaching settings (February to June 2010)4. Producing and sharing resources  Watch this space...
  47. 47. Sharing project progressBlog: http://web2assessment.blogspot.comBookmarks: www.citeulike.org/tag/assessment20Webinar: www.transformingassessment.com/events_26_may_2010.phpPapers:• Gray, K., Thompson, C., Clerehan, R., Sheard, J., & Hamilton, M. (2008). Web 2.0 authorship: Issues of referencing and citation for academic integrity. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 112-118.• Gray, K., Thompson, C., Sheard, J., Clerehan, R., & Hamilton, M. (2010). Students as web 2.0 authors: Implications for assessment design and conduct. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 105-122.
  48. 48. Call for papersAJET Special Issue on Assessing Students’ Web 2.0 Activities in Higher Education: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/about/special-issues/assess- students-web2-2011.html
  49. 49. AcknowledgementsProject Advisory Group• Matthew Allen, Bill Anderson, Greg Battye, Robyn Benson, Tracey Bretag, Jenny Buckworth, Denise Chalmers, Geoffrey Crisp, Leitha Delves, Bobby Elliott, Jacqui Ewart, Glenn Finger, Tom Franklin, Merrilyn Goos, Scott Grant, Ashley Holmes, Christopher Hughes, David Jones, Marj Kibby, Adrian Kirkwood, Mark Lee, Catherine McLoughlin, Beverley Oliver, Kaz Ross, Alison Ruth, Royce Sadler, Mary Simpson, Arthur Winzenried, Katina Zammit, Lynette Zeeng.Project Reference Group• Michael Abulencia, Robyn Benson, John Benwell, Marsha Berry, Marilys Guillemin, Laura Harris, Deborah Jones, Gregor Kennedy, Shaun Khoo, George Kotsanas, Lauren O’Dwyer, Jason Patten, Emma Read, Julianne Reid, Gordon Sanson, Cristina Varsavsky.Project Pilot-testing Group• Matthew Absolom, Anne Davies, Cathy Farrell, Scott Grant, Terry Hallahan, Michael Henderson, John Hurst, Ramon Lobato, Warren McKeown, Michael Nott, Kerry Pantzopoulos, Michele Ruyters, Michael Smith, Sandra Smith, Robyn Spence-Brown, Elizabeth Stewart, John Terrell, Jenny Weight, Lynette ZeengALTC Support for this project has been provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd. (www.altc.edu.au), an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, or the views of individual contributors apart from the project team.

×