This page provides a summary of the feedback we received from participants about the roundtable...

The best thing about today’s event was...

·         Exposure to the experiences and practices of educators from around the nation (many participants commented that sharing ideas with others was the best thing about the event).

·         Meeting with other educators and academics who are actively engaged in exploring and utilizing a range of Web 2.0 technology.

·         Sharing ideas with colleagues; listening to others’ experiences.

·         Move towards development of assessment policy to take into Web 2.0 technologies.

·         Time to reflect.

·         Finding out that everyone has hurdles to overcome with use of Web 2.0 technologies.

·         Guided discussion allowed practical outcomes.

·         Variety of experiences from participants.

·         Nice structure of activities.

·         Forcing me to think more closely about some issues.

·         Great people with interesting experiences and ideas.

·         Confirming common issues despite differences in the way technologies are used. Core assessment issues are still the same.

·         Raised issues and situated these in current experiences and practices.

·         Examples of good practice that came from the process of discussing concepts.

·         The generosity of people willing to share.

·         Discussion of assessment rather than marking.

The thing that could be most improved about today’s event was...

·         Keeping everyone focused on the tasks.

·         Make comments added to the wiki during the roundtable visible to those attending in person.

·         Inclusion of consideration of ePortfolios 2.0.

·         Needs more direct guidance regarding assessing work that is co-created.

·         Opportunity to learn more about the experiences of other attendees’ greater use of Web 2.0.

·         The layout of the room.

·         The wiki could have been set up earlier (Is a wiki the best tool here?)

·         More time to discuss – especially in the afternoon sessions.

·         Different format for plenary sessions following small group discussions – e.g., poster display with people moving around rooms for discussion.

·         Defining Web 2.0; problem of “principles”/guidelines not valid.

·         More time for breakout sessions.

·         More preparation for groups – e.g., on what was expected in afternoon session; start at 9am and have more time in groups.

·         Better questions; a handy hint list: what I did, what worked and what didn’t; what I’d do better next time.

·         Showcase of a few Australian universities using Web 2.0 tools.

·         Given the diversity of participants and their understanding I felt some more structure/definition was needed, so there was greater shared understanding about this purpose.

·         More guidance for or possibly facilitation of the small groups. The two I was in tended to stray from the topic.

Other comments...

·         Placing running commentary on wiki to enable external participation was a “smashing idea”.

·         Good developmental process to obtain input from a bunch of academics.

·         Still struggle with whether there is a need for specific principles for Web 2.0 assessment. Do we just need contextually appropriate mixing of known assessment principles with affordances of Web 2.0?

·         Please ensure we get updated on progress.

·         Will ongoing development of project be captured and available in the wiki?

·         Thank for the opportunity to contribute – it was an intellectually stimulating day.

·         Discipline/context relationship with tool choice.

·         I think it is the wrong question. Not how to assess Web 2.0 but rather how to assess these objectives etc (pedagogy) with the technology less prominent in the concern...

·         While I found it personally useful I fear the group as a whole did not provide the steering group with much that was useful.

·         Interesting that most focus was on the learning purposes of assessment but I suspect that most of our colleagues are most interested in the grading purposes – how to reconcile these, or even are they reconcilable in any practical sense?

·         Principles of assessment are hard to enact now. The Web 2.0 technologies add another layer of complexity that may inhibit the adoption of Web 2.0 for assessment.

·         As usual less formal parts of the day provided best opportunities for networking.

·         Felt a number of points pertained to various modes of assessment, so difficult to dissect those specific to Web 2.0.