Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides

  • 259 views
Uploaded on

Slides from the workshop presented by Margaret Hamilton and Joan Richardson at the Australian Technology Network conference in Sydney in November 2010. …

Slides from the workshop presented by Margaret Hamilton and Joan Richardson at the Australian Technology Network conference in Sydney in November 2010.
From the ALTC-funded project "Web 2.0 Authoring Tools in Higher Education: New Directions for Assessment and Academic Integrity"

More in: Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
259
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Students’ use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education:Good practice in assessment and academic integrity – What does it take? An ALTC priority project 2009-2011 Margaret Hamilton and Joan Richardson RMIT University ATN Assessment Workshop 19 November 2010
  • 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. Projectbackground
  • 4. The future of teaching & assessing “academic writing”Chodorow • “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” • “the roles of individual authors will be obscured in the electronic environment”
  • 5. The future of teaching & assessing “academic writing”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 of people can create a collective work whose value far exceeds that provided by any of the individual participants”
  • 6. The future of teaching & assessing “academic writing”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 and movies, forming judgments before seeing the arc of the entire work” “power-search for nuggets of information that might support their theses, saving them the time of wading through stacks of material that might prove marginal but that might have also prompted them to reconsider or refine their original thinking”
  • 7. What do you think ?“The assessment of student web 2.0 authoring is ....................... for learning and teaching in Australian universities”.
  • 8. Project aimsA collegial approach to addressing the challenges of universityassessment 2.0:1. Survey and interview Australian teaching academics (September 2009)2. Convene a national roundtable (November 2009)3. Field-test good practice guidelines (February to June 2010)4. Produce and share resources (July 2010 ff)
  • 9. 1. What goes on in assessment 2.0?The subject teaching context1. What discipline or professional degree/s are students enrolled in when they complete this unit of study?2. At what level/s is this unit of study?3. How many students were enrolled in this unit of study the last time it ran?4. When did you first use this assignment in more or less its present form in this unit of study?
  • 10. The subject teaching context Discipline Number of responsesHumanities/Society & Culture 16Education 15Information technology 11Management and commerce 6Health 5
  • 11. The mechanics of the assignment Type of Web 2.0 activity Number of responseswiki writing 32blogging/microblogging 31social networking 17audio/video podcasting 16virtual world activities 12social bookmarking 11
  • 12. The mechanics of the assignment Time given to complete Number of assignment responsesMore than 1 month 421 month or less 141 week or less 21 day or less 1
  • 13. The mechanics of the assignment Estimated time to complete Number of assignment responses11-20 hours 2101-10 hours 1721-30 hours 1031-40 hours 7Less than 1 hour 3More than 40 hours 1
  • 14. The marking process Who marks the assignment? Number of responsesMarked by one staff member 40Marked by more than one staff member 17Marked by other students 8Self-marked by the student/s responsible 7
  • 15. What techniques are used to mark the assignment? Number of responsesComments as well as marks provided 41Rubric used 33Marked in stages 22Equal marks shared by everyone in a student group 15Verification of identity of students submitting work 13Plagiarism checking tools used (e.g., Turnitin) 12Blind marking (i.e., student work is de-identified) 3Automated analysis or grading of student work 2
  • 16. What feedback do students receive? Number of responsesGrades in the form of a number or letter 44Confirmation 43(confirmation that work is of acceptable standard)Explanation 41(recommendations for bringing work up to standard)Correction 39(flagging of specific shortcomings with student work)Elaboration 25(supplementary information to extend understanding)Diagnosis(analysis of what may have led to shortcomings or 22misconceptions in student work)
  • 17. 2. What would good practice look like?When university students are asked todemonstrate their learning using this form ofweb 2.0 authoring, what academic standards,and assessment and reporting practices areessential or desirable? Proceedings of national roundtable:http://web2assessmentroundtable.pbworks.com/
  • 18. 2. What would good practice look like?Affordances:Ensuring an appropriate fit between what Web 2.0 activities entail and what assessment is trying to achieve• Open publishing• Communication styles and texts• Personal identity and experience• Co-creation, collaboration, crowdsourcing• Content management
  • 19. 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.
  • 20. 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.
  • 21. 2. What would good practice look like?ProcessesSupporting individual and Designorganisational learningthroughout the cycle of Review Implementassessment activities Feedback Mark
  • 22. ProcessesDesign rationale• Student learning can’t be assessed with as much effectiveness, reliability or validity by using any other type of assignment.• Students strive to achieve excellence more than they would in some other type of assignment.• Staff manage the assignment related workload more sustainably than with some other type of assignment.• Another reason ....
  • 23. ProcessesImplementing how?• Explain the timing, weighting and criteria• Show and discus exemplary student work• Explain academic attribution and citation practices that are expected• Provide opportunities to practice and show learning based on formative assessment, before submitting work for summative assessment• Other teaching techniques?
  • 24. ProcessesReview and monitor using...• Student feedback about this assignment• Input from relevant professional or industry advisors• Longitudinal evaluation of student performance in this assignment• Academic peer review in learning and teaching forums• Other methods of continuous improvement....
  • 25. 2. What would good practice look like?PolicyAssessment that is safe andfair for students and staff• disability• access to IT services or equipment• appropriate conduct• identity and privacy• academic honesty and integrity• special consideration• moral rights and copyright
  • 26. 3. What works and doesn’t work in real subject teaching settings? Criminal Law18 subjects @ Blogging Cultural Studies5 universities Media Studiesduring Social bookmarking EducationSemester 1, Social networking Japanese2010: Photo and video Communication Design Economics sharing Work Integrated Learning Business Virtual worlds Chinese Accounting Education Wiki writing Science Information Technology Italian Combined Web 2.0 Document Management tools Information Technology
  • 27. We acknowledge contributions by ...Project 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 Field-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, Sukunesan Sinnappan, Michael Smith, Sandra Smith, Robyn Spence-Brown, Elizabeth Stewart, John Terrell, Jenny Weight, Lynette ZeengALTCSupport 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.
  • 28. We invite you to join in and extend the discussion• Moodle: www.groups.edna.edu.au/course/view.php?id=2146• Blog: http://web2assessment.blogspot.com• Bookmarks: http://www.citeulike.org/tag/assessment20• Workshops 2010-2011 @ HERDSA, ATN Assessment, ASCILITE, ACE• Feedback: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22APCVU3JP7
  • 29. References• Chodorow, S. (2000). Scholarship & scholarly communication in the electronic age. Educause Review, 35(1), 86-92. Retrieved 28 November, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM001B.pdf• Kakutani, M. (2010, 17 March). Texts without context. [Book review]. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/books/21mash.html?ref=books• O’Reilly, T., & Battelle, J. (2009). Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On. Special Report for the Web 2.0 Summit, 20-22 October , San Francisco CA. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from http://assets.en.oreilly.com/1/event/28/web2009_websquared- whitepaper.pdf