This wiki page is provided for recording small group discussions about issues relating to the use of Web 2.0 technologies and designing assessment.
Participants
Denise Chalmers
Matthew Allen
Tracey Bretag
Mark Lee
Alison Ruth
Arthur Winzenried
Scribe: Ardis Cheng
The task for this small group discussion is to build on the recommendations identified in the morning session and consider how these might be applied at the design stage in the assessment cycle. In this session, the aim is to identify general recommendations, rather than technology-specific ones.
Design Assessment
Do make it match the objectives
Learning objectives have to be enabled
Identify the learning
Learning can be met by different tasks – web 2 can meet the tasks (ubiquitious)
If the need can be met by different ways, the technology can be used
Design the task before selecting the technology?
But the task is enabled by the different technologies
Clear objectives but flexibility and honing on affordances of the different technologies
Allow collaboration in different ways – afford construction and co-construction, social learning environment (eg. Sharing of document, continual negotiation key)
If focusing on co-construction or collaboration then it justifies using a web 2 technology
WIKIS
Make learning objectives clear
Technologies fulfil objectives
Objectives clear, transparent and succinct
Not just designing task, but design it to be wide enough to encompass all 3 (technology, objectives, outcomes)
Co-construction of a task that takes in learning objectives and technology
Where do the students start?
Design decisions need to be made in partnership – how is this different from traditional assessment?
Reliable platform needed
The task needs to be designed to take advantage of availability of technology and the end point isn’t so defined (there are guides) but outcomes are not nailed down – there are outcomes that are not predicted (allow for creativity)
Scaffolding process
Need to choose technology supported by institution
PhD student designed a platform that the university in Thailand did not have the resources to support what she had defined and built – was too dependent of bandwidth
Don’t let the technology get in the way of the learning – not the sole driving force - you have to be technologically responsible
Don’t let technology be the object – it is just the tool
Great degree of fluidity- feeding back into the design
Co-construction – what these techs allow – let students use a suite of technologies
The technology is an enabler to achieve the form of the outcome
Fitness for purpose – if task is to teach people to use wiki – this is different from telling people to work together but who are geographically far apart
Everything said about web 2 was said about web 1 back in the 90s
Web 2 – incredible diversity – the challenge
We want learning outcomes with particular affordances from technologies – what are the hurdles (maybe specific to the situation)
Do take into account the diverse needs, the diversity of the students, how to assess the results, moderation, numbers, marking, what can be achieved (10 postgrad students results will differ to results from 100 undergrad students), management
Tracking of students to verify that what students do is their work
University is looking at the maths – ex. Business (how many students can you fit into the lecture hall)
Need to be realistic – what you can do on the ground (both for the student and the marker)
When would web 2 be an authentic experience for a student? Authentic to what? Students refer to the real world but we are in the real world
Authenticity – whether the outcomes of the student are something they learned – maybe relevance is a better word? Personal meaning and revelence. Idealizing the real world is a dangerous term.
Authentic question – students can delve into it and talk about why (not superficial – require higher-level thinking, not regurgitation)
Ownership of the learning, of the work
Vested interest
Sense of purpose, why people would want to do it – authenticity
In some instances, might not see the revelance right away (math)
Co-construction between learners, the complexitiy, the fine-tuning of the work/process
What makes web 2 different? The co-construction, the openness to this co-construction
How is this linked to web2? More openness to immediacy, more transparent
People cooperating online are not necessarily more transparent – transparency referring to logged work (assesser can look at what was contributed to the work)
Do be aware of the process (more emphasis on the process over product)
Do use Web 2 if you are focusing on process
But process is not the core thing. A lot of assessment now does focus too much on the product. Need to be aware of the process that can be assessed. When are you not interested in the process? The gov’t – as long you get there and produce
In the end – do you really want to assess the process. Isn’t the product the standards that you identify.
You can build in things to measure the process. Ex. International student using wiki – could see his process and see the progress of the student
Web 2 provides the opportunity to provide feedback – the capacity to get that feedback immediately and see how others students fair
Do you use web 2 to get ongoing feedback? The access to ongoing feedback and the opportunity to respond to that before the product is produced
The capacity to see other people’s working at the same time as yours – while I’m doing my learning and getting feedback, I can see other people, their feedback and their responses – really opening up (students learning from each other)
Some lecturers don’t like having students look at each other’s work, taking what they like, and integrating into their work – goes against traditional teaching/learning
Legitimacy – student opinions become more legitimate if taken into account during the process – what is rewarded – circles around the issue of ownership the process becomes legitimized
Contribution in process are being validated
Can’t just take on other people’s opinion – critical reflectivity is being developed – de-centering of traditional ways of education (instructor is no longer the sole source of instruction because of this co-construction/co-learning)
Ex. Academics penalized at a university for poor grades from their students therefore they don’t want to spread out the teaching (assume complete control)
Principles:
Reflect on what you mean by web 2 (no right answer but people shouldn’t get into something just because other people are or other people tell you to or its the latest fad) – Don’t use Web 2 just because you think its a fad
What’s the next step?
What are your own goals and attitudes? Do they match up to Web 2? (par the reflection)
Need to be clear on learning objectives – know what the technologies are and whether they marry up to the objectives
People need more help, especially those who don’t know much about web 2 – how can they reflect?
Can’t be too rigid – know the sorts of learning but accept that it may exceed it or not reach
Triangulate – objectives, task, application (once you have decided to use Web 2 and have reflected on it)
Authenticity – attempting to demonstrate potentially sceptical students the revelence
Pertinent vs impertinent (instead of authenticity and relevence) – getting students engaged, the task is realistic
Make assessment task pertinent after triangulation and iterate
Providing feedback – make the assessment practical
Access to ongoing feedback is a particular affordance that this technology allows – the teacher doesn’t have to be the one to provide feedback, other students can contribute
Building a learning community
Feedback is the one thing that absolutely contributes to learning – feedback is the beginning, middle, and end of a task
What an interaction between those who know the domain and those who don’t (between instructor and student, student and student, etc – experts and novices)
Students take on multiple roles – can be expert, can be novice
Communities is not the answer to everything but the give and take of feedback and web 2 facilitates this
Feedback is underrated by teachers and needs to be put up front, middle, and end
From feedback to feed
Triangulation – emphasis on not the teacher being the sole designer (it would be impertinent for the teacher to be the only designer and students just as contributors – not active designers)