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.