Asw2 a meu seminar slideshare


Published on

Slides from a presentation given by Kathleen Gray and Jenny Waycott for a Medical Education Unit seminar series at the University of Melbourne in June 2010.
From the ALTC-funded project "Web 2.0 Authoring Tools in Higher Education: New Directions for Assessment and Academic Integrity".

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Asw2 a meu seminar slideshare

  1. 1. Good practice in using Web 2.0to assess student learning in higher education An ALTC Priority Project 2009-2011 Kathleen Gray & Jenny Waycott Health Informatics & Virtual Environments Research Group University of Melbourne Medical Education Unit, University of Melbourne Seminar 30 June 2010
  2. 2. 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.
  3. 3. Projectbackground
  4. 4. The future of scientific & scholarly communicationChodorow • “the form and substance of scholarly(2000, p.91) communications will change over time, so that it will be difficult to trace the historical flow of the work” • “a free-flowing stream of scholarly discourse will reduce the role of scholarly authority in the progress of research”Chodorow, S. (2000). Scholarship & scholarly communication in the • “the roles of individual authors will be electronic age. Educause Review, obscured in the electronic environment” 35(1), 86-92. http://www.educause.e du/ir/library/pdf/ERM0 01B.pdf
  5. 5. Use of Web 2.0 in university learning and teaching ‘Web 2.0 and emerging technologies in online learning’ ‘Analysis of 10 popular Web 2.0 tools used in higher education’ ‘Facilitating new forms of discourse for learning and teaching: harnessing the power of Web 2.0 practices ’‘The changing space of research: Web 2.0 and the integration of research and writing environments’ ‘Can Web 2.0 and social software help transform how we measure quality in teaching, learning, and research?’
  6. 6. Implications for university learning, teaching & assessment?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. by any of the individual participants”8/web2009_websquared-whitepaper.pdf
  7. 7. Implications for university learning, teaching & assessment?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 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”
  8. 8. Project aimsAcademic standards, academic integrity, assessment principles ...How to apply these to assessing student web 2.0 activities?1. Survey and interview teaching academics (September 2009)2. Draft guidelines for good practice (November 2009)3. Pilot with teachers and students (February - June 2010)4. Produce and share resources (July 2010 ff)
  9. 9. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices Some preliminary findings about how, where and why 60 Australian academics are using Web 2.0 for assessment of student learning that is more than just formative (i.e. that earns marks in a subject)
  10. 10. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices: How Type of Web 2.0 activity Number of responsesWiki writing 32Blogging/microblogging 31Social networking 17Audio/video podcasting 16Virtual world activities 12Social bookmarking 11
  11. 11. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices: How Where students complete assignment Number of responsesOff campus elsewhere (e.g., at home during 52independent study time)On campus but out of class 25On campus in class 16Off campus while undertaking fieldwork or 7workplace learning
  12. 12. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices: HowHow 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
  13. 13. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices: Where Field of Study Number of respondents 16Humanities / Society & Culture 15Education 11Information Technology 9Medicine & Health 6Management & CommerceOther 3
  14. 14. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices: Where Number of students Number of responses enrolled in unitLess than 50 2150-100 10101-200 9More than 200 7
  15. 15. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices: Where Level of study Number of responsesBachelor or honours degree 35Postgraduate coursework degree 16
  16. 16. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices: Why 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
  17. 17. Medicine/Health Example 1• Individual students: – Develop a wiki page on an assigned topic of relevance to the unit of study. – Publish it for peer review. – Review another students wiki page on another topic. – Reflect on the feedback received on/edits made to their wiki page• Graded on a five point scale (F, P-, P, P+). Grades are awarded for criteria in five capability areas• Encourages deep engagement with the topic, involves peer feedback, develops materials for use by all students.
  18. 18. Medicine/Health Example 2• Students interview working biomedical scientists, review each others’ reports and publish final marked reports on a type of social networking site.• Worth 11-20% of their subject mark• Published for: “High school students ... looking for careers in science don’t know the names of many disciplines, they certainly don’t know the names of any people ... it’s a bit like a dating site. The visitors answer the same questions and the system pulls up the people who match.”
  19. 19. Medicine/Health Example 3• Students are allocated to groups and given a topic, on which they must create and upload an educational and informative “document“ and give a class presentation.• Groups may choose to create a video clip or a podcast (or a poster or flyer or similar).• The students’ “document” and talk are assessed by peers and course coordinator/ faculty member.• Part of the subject learning experience is for students and the teacher to negotiate assessment criteria to be used.
  20. 20. What would good practice look like? National roundtable Three checklists:Affordances of Web 2.0 tools and technologies Assessment processes Assessment and related academic policies
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 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.
  23. 23. 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.
  24. 24. 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.
  25. 25. 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.
  26. 26. 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.
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. What staff have said about ... Designing the assignment Implementing the assignment Marking the assignment Giving results and feedback to studentsReviewing how well the assignment works
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. Examples where policies are not clearly observedPolicy 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
  31. 31. What can (and can’t) be done in real subject teaching settings?Draft guidelines Cinema Studies / Criminal Law Bloggingpilot-tested Cultural Studies / Media Studiesfor practicability Social bookmarking Educationin 17 subjects Social networking Languagesat 5 universities Video sharing Business / Economicsin Victoria Photo sharing Communication Designduring Sem 1, 2010 Virtual worlds Languages Accounting / Education Wiki writing Information Technology Languages / Science Combined Information Management Web 2.0 tools Information Technology
  32. 32. Sharing project progressMoodle: http://web2assessment.blogspot.comBookmarks: 2010-11 @ HERDSA, ATN Assessment, ASCILITE, ACEPapers:• 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.
  33. 33. 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 Laboto, 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. (, 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.