Gray herdsa2010 slideshare
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Gray herdsa2010 slideshare

on

  • 381 views

Slides from a workshop presented by Kathleen Gray and Celia Thompson at the HERDSA conference in Melbourne in July 2010....

Slides from a workshop presented by Kathleen Gray and Celia Thompson at the HERDSA conference in Melbourne in July 2010.
From the ALTC-funded project, "Web 2.0 Authoring tools in Higher Education: New Directions for Assessment and Academic Integrity".

Statistics

Views

Total Views
381
Views on SlideShare
381
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

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

Gray herdsa2010 slideshare Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Students’ use of Web 2.0 tools for assessment in higher education: What constitutes good practice? An ALTC Priority Project 2009-2011 HERDSA Conference Workshop 6 July 2010 Kathleen Gray & Celia Thompson
  • 2. Workshop outline1. The story behind this ALTC project2. What’s YOUR interest in participating today?3. What have we found out so far?4. What things about Web 2.0 do we need to consider, to be sure of “good practice” when we use it to assess students? [over to YOU – over a cuppa]5. Our draft framework & pilot testing6. YOUR feedback & following up your interests
  • 3. 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.
  • 4. Projectbackground
  • 5. This slide showed a spoof graph by dante88, retrieved from http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/song-chart- memes-research-paper.jpgIt was a pie chart entitled “Composition of my 25-page research paper” showing that 50% of the content of the paper was “Wikipedia information disguised as something else”
  • 6. 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
  • 7. Why and how might we want our students to use the social web to demonstrate their learning?• This slide showed the image “Social media landscape” published by Fred Cavazza, 9 June 2008, at FredCavazza.net. Retrieved 20 June 2010 from http://www.fredcavazza.net/2008/06/09/social-media- landscape/
  • 8. 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.http://assets.en.oreilly.com/1/event/2 by any of the individual participants”8/web2009_websquared-whitepaper.pdf
  • 9. 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 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”
  • 10. Use of Web 2.0 in university learning and teaching ... lots to talk about ‘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?’
  • 11. 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”.
  • 12. Project aimsAssist universities when assessment uses Web 2.0 by:1. Investigating current practitioners > Survey and interview teaching academics (September 2009)2. Identifying principles of good practice > Advisory group and national roundtable (November 2009)3. Iterating practicable guidelines > Pilot testing in learning and teaching settings (February to June 2010)4. Producing and sharing resources (July 2010 ff)
  • 13. 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)
  • 14. 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
  • 15. 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
  • 16. 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
  • 17. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices: Where Field of Study Number of respondents 16Humanities / Society & Culture 15Education 11Information Technology 9Medicine & Health 6Management & CommerceOther 3
  • 18. 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
  • 19. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices: Where Level of study Number of responsesBachelor or honours degree 35Postgraduate coursework degree 16
  • 20. 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
  • 21. Current Web 2.0 assessment practices Would you like to comment on any of the other survey data that are in your handout?
  • 22. 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 + refreshments as required + report back
  • 23. 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
  • 24. 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.
  • 25. 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.
  • 26. 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.
  • 27. 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.
  • 28. 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.
  • 29. 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
  • 30. What staff have said about ... Pick out a quote that interests youfrom the checklist on “stages in the assessment cycle”: Designing the assignment Implementing the assignment Marking the assignment Giving results and feedback to students Reviewing how well the assignment works
  • 31. 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
  • 32. 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
  • 33. What can (and can’t) be done in practice in subject L&T 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
  • 34. Sharing project progressMoodle: www.groups.edna.edu.au/course/view.php?id=2146Blog: http://web2assessment.blogspot.comBookmarks: www.citeulike.org/tag/assessment20Webinar: www.transformingassessment.com/events_26_may_2010.phpWorkshops 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.
  • 35. 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.
  • 36. Your comments, questions, feedback, follow-up?• This slide showed a web page “Learning Web2.0 tools and applications” published by Go2web20.net and retrieved 2 July 2010 from http://www.go2web20.net/#learning