| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.

View
 

Marking

Page history last edited by asma@kict.iiu.edu.my 11 years, 8 months ago

Assessment Cycle: Marking

 

This wiki page has been provided to record small group discussions about issues relating to the use of Web 2.0 technologies and marking students' web 2.0 authoring in higher education.

 

Participants

Belinda Tynan

Greg Battye

Jacqui Ewart

Chris Hughes

Lynette Zeeng                    

Scribe: Asma Md Ali 

 

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 during the marking stage in the assessment cycle. In this session, the aim is to identify general recommendations, rather than technology-specific ones.

 

 

Scribe notes:

 

Chris

Lynette

Jacqui

Kathleen

Scribe: asma, suraya

 

Assuming

·         Good design done

·         Good assesment established

·         Criteria = rubric designed

·         Technology as a means of an end, not the end outcome

Marking

·         Use of technology – self reflect, think critically, writing skill

·         Criteria outcome

·         Skillset of using the technology: technical skills, other skills?

 

Recommendation1:  need constraint to avoid problems when developing marking / rubric criteria; huge spectrum;  affordances; features. Recognise task using the features to value it. The grade will reflect that. Achieve using features.

Jacqui - Using twitters instead of essay. Short relfect in journalism using twitter. They are achieving something  out of that tool.

Strategies to mark those reflection:  

·          At the design stage set up the criteria, at the end marking according to it. (Chris)

·         Weekly basis. Good thing: timing is recorded.  (Lynette)

·         Wiki – peer review process marking (Chris)

·         Social web does not have to be the whole world, just for a particular users (organisation).

·         Language: grammar and syntax:

o   Jacqui - Lineant on writing symbols. Mind shift when marking twitter than essay

o   Chris- Wiki pages for each other – peers. Scientific material. Slightly less formal. Not accept lack of grammar. Appropriate link. Value wiki format.

·         Recommendation 2:  set particular audience (reader).

 

 When marking do we need to check each link? (Kathleen)

Jacqui – intuitive with marking

 

How to communicate to other examiners for large student cohort? (Kathleen)

·         Chris – give plan of website and the actual website

What if markers  do not looking at concept map? (Kathleen)

·         Chris – supervisually assessing the screen than the conceptual map is the bigger concern.

·         Lynette – three groups; the sessional know what to be mark and not to be mark; coodinator can check online at the sessional at the marking criteria. Moderation online.

·         Kathleen – community of pratice on marking.

Recommendation 3: large cohort: standard and moderation

Web 2.0 keep changing; wiki keep updating; from gallery can know the exampler student work. More collaborative and save time. Feedback from student  - more immediate. (Lynette)

Recommendation 4: provide examplers - expectation

Plagarism issue (Kathleen)

·         not an issue that come out. self-relfection. Just a small part. (Jacqui)

·          electronic can be easily checked. 650 assignment . marking online. Brief comments. Give examples of good feedback. Good tool for moderating.( Chris)

Recommendation 5: Plagarism issue is easier to deal with.

 

 

 Transparency and practice sharing. (Kathleen)

·          downside:annotating essay. Upside: transparency. (Chris)

·          Assess with comments: annotation of actual work. (Lynette)

·         Use of web 2.0 as marking: public and private.

·         peer review critical regular basis. Across cohort. Improve analytically and critically. (Lynette)

Recommendation 6: the world is marking 

 

Kathleen – sense of blackboard assignment?

Lynette – need a lot more portal to get to things, but same in time stamp.

Alex – why student can fail if working and submit in one day?

Lynette - Get feedback along the way. Skill required. Learning along the way.

Chris – criteria; published citeria; online useful checking.

asma- good to know what the criteria is in the early start rather than after the assignment is marked.

Suraya – with the criteria, can focus in degree requirement; UG got requirements, PG requirement.

 

 

Should student be allowed to fail? Facilitated to demonstrate learning. Less likely that the mark is bellcurved? (Kathleen)

·         come out just the same. Different tool  to achieve something. (Lynette)

·          twitter for news stories; interview; fantastic student. Vary patchy. Not a bell curve. Maybe because it wast he first time as well. (Jacqui)

·          writing for lecturer and other students; engage more and update their work. (Chris)

Professional work audience appropriate as one criteria. (Jacqui)

Allow more than the usual readers. Invite external critics markers? (Kathleen)

·          interesting to panel of markers. Some of the strength to cope with negative resources. (Jacqui)

·          Marking is different than commenting.( Chris)

·          getting comments and marking from working professionals (Jacqui)

·         clinical issue – more privacy –  inaccuracy issue– access to student product error (Chris)

·          alumni to medical field? (Kathleen)

·         opening to a group that have a role. Not acceptable to open to public. (Chris)

·          professionals are very hard markers because they look at the high level. Good as commentators and advisors. Problematic as a marker. (Lynette)

·         in medicine . a lot of computer illeterate people. Constraint a tthe marking level. Hate to do it on the screen. (Chris)

·         some prefer to do it (Jacqui)

·         external reference point.( Kathleen)

Recommendation 7: External professional as commentator and advisor rather than marker. 

Comments (4)

Bobby Elliott said

at 9:10 pm on Nov 23, 2009

The marking of students' use of Web 2 technologies is a particular problem. Web 2 is a great way of generating assessment evidence (authentic, natural, engaging) but particularly problematic when it comes to its objective assessment. The reliability of assessment in HE has been a long-standing problem (lack of rigour, vague rubrics, subjective application where they exist, inconsistent marking between markers - and even from the same marker) -- and Web 2.0 provides even more opportunity to compound these problems!

c.hughes@unsw.edu.au said

at 10:41 am on Nov 24, 2009

One of the ways we make assessment more manageable with wikis is to constrain some of the options that web2.0 offers. We put a quota on the number of students who can take the assignment, allocate page topics randomly to the students, limit author/edit access to the group of accepted student authors, give a timeline for authoring, then for reviewing, and we organise the reviewers so that each student must/can review one other student's work only. Finally we publish the product (the assessment task is to contribute a page to a wiki that is slowly assembling a text book for the first phase of our medicine program) to all other students in our program (and to staff).

At the moment, this final product is not editable except by the course convenors. We do have concerns about it going out of date over time, and are considering opening it up to the student and staff body for editing, but this would not be part of the assessment process.

Students taking this wiki assignment finally submit their wiki page, a list of the edits made by their reviewer, and a reflection on the edits made. The assignment is assessed for the content of the page (science capability), for the reflection on the edits (reflection capability), for the quality of the writing and its appropriateness to the audience (communication capability), for the quality of the research and citation standards (self direction capability), and for personal refections on the whole assignment (reflection capability again, but with different criteria). A grade and feedback is given for each capability (all our assessments are capability linked in this way). All these assessments are criterion referenced with the criteria available to the students at the start. After assessment the student might be asked to make further edits to bring their wiki page up to publishable standard.

c.hughes@unsw.edu.au said

at 10:42 am on Nov 24, 2009

(Comment continued because of word limit on posts)

I realise that this approach is not taking full advantage of the openness and flexibility that web 2.0 apps offer, but it allows us to use some of their features while maintaining standards and fitting the marking into a routine and familiar process for students and assessors. We mark about 620 assignments or group projects every 8 weeks (students get to choose from a menu of options, so not all are doing the wiki assignment), so fitting the process into the standard approach is important

One issue that arises in marking are: marking on screen versus on paper. When students submit websites that are complex and contain many links, we ask them to submit a map of the site so that the assessor can orient themselves to the layout and links. Another is that we require all comments to be entered into an online marking system. Markers are then less happy about also annotating students actual submission or the wiki pages themselves and in some cases this means the job is more laborious for markers, and the students get fewer detailed comments.

I guess we need to keep in mind that there are many shades of grey between full web2.0 and some constrained uses of the applications.

a.t.kirkwood@open.ac.uk said

at 1:43 am on Nov 26, 2009

Plagiarism. In the practice-based online MA modules offered by IET at the UK Open University we encourage learners to draw upon a wide range of sources (including their own experiences and those of fellow students) so we expect assignments to include a considerable amount of 'quoted' material. It is very important to encoursage students to adopt, from the start, good practice in relation to acknowledging sources, providing complete references, acquiring permission from fellow students to quote from their discussion contributions, etc. We want them to demonstrate how they have engaged actively with the ideas of others.

You don't have permission to comment on this page.