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

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


Participant feedback

Page history last edited by Jenny Waycott 14 years, 4 months ago

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


Number of participants who agreed or disagreed with the following statements:

Strongly disagree


Neutral or undecided


Strongly agree

The roundtable provided a forum for me to share experiences, ideas and perspectives on assessing student web 2.0 authoring.






The roundtable enabled me to review and synthesise information relevant to the assessment of student web 2.0 authoring.






The roundtable gave me an opportunity to provide recommendations for good practice guidelines that universities can apply when assessing student web 2.0 authoring.






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.


Comments (0)

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