Ascilite workshop web 2 assessment slideshare

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

Workshop outline

1. About the project – who we are, why we’re here
2. 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 studies
6. Group activity: discussing scenarios of Web 2.0 assessment
7. YOUR feedback and where to go for further information

About the project

ALTC-funded priorities project (2009-2011):
Web 2.0 authoring tools in higher education
learning and teaching: new directions for
assessment and academic integrity.

Project team

Jenny 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.

What’s YOUR interest in participating today?
Please tell us
your 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”.

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 of
O’Reilly, T., & Battelle, J. (2009). Web
Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On.
people can create a collective work
Special Report for the Web 2.0
Summit, 20-22 October , San Francisco
whose value far exceeds that provided
CA.
http://assets.en.oreilly.com/1/event/2
by any of the individual participants”
8/web2009_websquared-
whitepaper.pdf

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, more
paras 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
Kakutani, 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”

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?

Project aims
Participatory approach to supporting good practice in
assessment 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...

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.


Field of Study Number of respondents

16
Humanities / Society & Culture

15
Education

11
Information Technology

9
Medicine & Health

6
Management & Commerce

3
Other

Type of Web 2.0 activity Number of responses

Wiki writing 32

Blogging/microblogging 31

Social networking 17

Audio/video podcasting 16

Virtual world activities 12

Social bookmarking 11


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

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

Intended learning outcomes Number of
responses

Generic or graduate skills or attributes 35

Specialised knowledge or skills required in a
29
discipline or profession

Foundation knowledge or skills preparatory to
28
a discipline or profession

What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment ...

Open publishing

It’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


Informal writing / communication styles

it’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.


Personal identity and experience

There 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’.


Co-authoring content

Students found it challenging to co-create content and
collaborate with other students
How 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?


Content management

There’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


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

What staff have said about Web 2.0 and assessment...


I 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



The 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


Protecting students

I 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.


Protecting students

I 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.

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?

What would “good practice” look like ... ?

… when university students are asked to demonstrate
their 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 pertain

Small groups + report back

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

What would good practice look like? Affordances

Affordances 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


Open 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.


Communication 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.


Personal 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.


Co-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.


Content 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.

What would good practice look like? Processes

Processes checklist ...

How do teachers use Web 2.0 Design
to support student, self- and
organisational learning
Review Implement
throughout the cycle of
activities involved in the
assignment?

Feedback Mark

What would good practice look like? Policies

Policies checklist ... • disability
• access to IT services or
How can assessment using equipment
Web 2.0 be made safe and fair • appropriate conduct
for students and staff? • identity and privacy
• academic honesty and
integrity
• special consideration
• moral rights and copyright

Surveyed staff were not always sure whether they were clearly
observing assessment policies: some examples

Policy area % Not sure

Copies of students’ marked work are available if there is a need to 20
deal with appeals/complaints
This assignment encourages academic honesty and integrity 20
Students’ identity and privacy in online environments are 20
safeguarded
Students are provided with timely feedback on marked work for this 20
assignment
This assignment provides for equitable assessment for students with 23
a disability
Students’ moral right and copyright in work they produce are 27
protected
Students whose work shows evidence of cheating or misconduct are 28
formally disciplined

Field-testing guidelines / improving practice
Cinema Studies / Criminal Law
17 case studies: Blogging
Cultural Studies / Media Studies
Draft guidelines Social
pilot-tested Education
bookmarking
in 17 subjects
Social networking Languages
at 5 universities
Video sharing Business / Economics
in Victoria
during Semester 1, Photo sharing Communication Design
2010
Virtual worlds Languages
Accounting / Education
Wiki writing Information Technology
Languages / Science
Combined Information Management
Web 2.0 tools Information Technology

Field-testing guidelines / improving practice

Case 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

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

Sharing project progress

Blog: http://web2assessment.blogspot.com

Bookmarks: www.citeulike.org/tag/assessment20
Webinar: www.transformingassessment.com/events_26_may_2010.php
Papers:
• 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.

Call for papers

AJET 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

Acknowledgements
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 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 Zeeng

ALTC 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.

Ascilite workshop web 2 assessment slideshare

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Ascilite workshop web 2 assessment slideshare

Similar to Ascilite workshop web 2 assessment slideshare (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ascilite workshop web 2 assessment slideshare