Presentation to Teaching with Technology Seminars series at the University of Cape Town

1. Online conversation
spaces
Educational and assessment issues
Alan Cliff
(alan.cliff@uct.ac.za)

2. What are we talking about?
— Forums
— Chat rooms
— Blogs
— Electronic ‘spaces’
— Other?

3. Theoretical framing
— Learning potential assessment (Vygotsky; Sternberg
and Grigorenko; Poehner)
— Social constructivism and constructive alignment
(Biggs; Rust)
— Assessment of qualitative differences / taxonomic
approaches (Marton; Bloom; Krathwohl)
— Adult learning theory, particularly critical reflection
(Brookfield)

4. Myths and misconceptions
— Online assessment is more difficult than
conventional assessment
— Online assessment is easier than conventional
assessment!
— Oral assessment is more subjective than written
assessment
— Formative learning cannot or should not be
assessed

5. Why online learning?
— A continuum from very informal spaces to guided
reflective moments (cf. Brookfield) to highly intentional,
structured learning moments
— A continuum from student-directed and led to lecturer-
directed and led
— A space for dialogue and meaning-making
— A practice / try-out space
— Knowledge-building
— A space for challenge
— A learning community space

6. Design issues as impact
— Lecturer as participant or not
— The learning purpose:
— Knowledge-making
— Knowledge-production
— Degrees of student autonomy
— Critiques / evaluation
— Cognitive / affective /social issues
— Lecturer as ‘voyeur’ / discussant
— Learning analytics issues
— Ethics

7. Focuses of assessment
— Content focuses: what participants interact about
— Concept focuses: conceptions and misconceptions
— Change / formative focuses: the object is in what
ways and by how much a student or group changes
— ‘Flipped’ opportunities: pre-lecture focuses; other-
than-lecture focuses; augmented focuses
— Assignment focuses: students share their work with
one another

8. Assessment choices
— Discussion with students / external participants
— To ‘count’ or not to ‘count’? (Should the
conversation be for marks)
— What counts: the content; the concept; the
grappling; the reflective quality; the extent of
change?
— Intentional, guided activity
— Rubric or feedback guide to participants
— Formative or summative?