atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides
DESCRIPTION
Slides from the workshop presented by Margaret Hamilton and Joan Richardson at the Australian Technology Network conference in Sydney in November 2010. From the ALTC-funded project "Web 2.0 Authoring Tools in Higher Education: New Directions for Assessment and Academic Integrity"TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Students’ use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education:Good practice in assessment and academic integrity –
What does it take?
An ALTC priority project 2009-2011
Margaret Hamilton and Joan Richardson
RMIT University
ATN Assessment Workshop19 November 2010
![Page 2: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Project team
Jenny Waycott (project manager), Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne.
Celia Thompson, School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne.
Margaret Hamilton, School of Computer Science and IT, RMIT University.
Joan Richardson, School of Business Information Technology, RMIT University.
Kathleen Gray (project leader), Faculty of Medicine / Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne.
Rosemary Clerehan, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University.
Judithe Sheard, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University.
![Page 3: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Project background
![Page 4: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
The future of teaching & assessing “academic writing”
Chodorow
(2000, p.91)
• “the form and substance of scholarly communications will change over time, so that it will be difficult to trace the historical flow of the work”
• “a free-flowing stream of scholarly discourse will reduce the role of scholarly authority in the progress of research”
• “the roles of individual authors will be obscured in the electronic environment”
![Page 5: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The future of teaching & assessing “academic writing”
O’Reilly & Battelle
(2009, p. 2)
“One of the fundamental ideas underlying Web 2.0 [is] that successful network applications are systems for harnessing collective intelligence ... a large group of people can create a collective work whose value far exceeds that provided by any of the individual participants”
![Page 6: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The future of teaching & assessing “academic writing”
Kakutani
(2010,
paras 13-14)
“jump to the summary, the video clip, the sound bite — never mind if context and nuance are lost in the process; never mind if it’s our emotions, more than our sense of reason, that are engaged; never mind if statements haven’t been properly vetted and sourced”
“tweet and text one another during plays and movies, forming judgments before seeing the arc of the entire work”
“power-search for nuggets of information that might support their theses, saving them the time of wading through stacks of material that might prove marginal but that might have also prompted them to reconsider or refine their original thinking”
![Page 7: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
What do you think
?
“The assessment of student web 2.0 authoring is
.......................
for learning and teaching in Australian universities”.
![Page 8: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Project aims
A collegial approach to addressing the challenges of university assessment 2.0:
1. Survey and interview Australian teaching academics (September 2009)
2. Convene a national roundtable (November 2009)
3. Field-test good practice guidelines (February to June 2010)
4. Produce and share resources (July 2010 ff)
![Page 9: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
1. What goes on in assessment 2.0?
The subject teaching context
1. What discipline or professional degree/s are students enrolled in when they complete this unit of study?
2. At what level/s is this unit of study?
3. How many students were enrolled in this unit of study the last time it ran?
4. When did you first use this assignment in more or less its present form in this unit of study?
![Page 10: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
The subject teaching context
DisciplineNumber of
responses
Humanities/Society & Culture 16
Education 15
Information technology 11
Management and commerce 6
Health 5
![Page 11: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
The mechanics of the assignment
Type of Web 2.0 activity Number of responses
wiki writing 32
blogging/microblogging 31
social networking 17
audio/video podcasting 16
virtual world activities 12
social bookmarking 11
![Page 12: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
The mechanics of the assignment
Time given to complete
assignment
Number of
responses
More than 1 month 42
1 month or less 14
1 week or less 2
1 day or less 1
![Page 13: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The mechanics of the assignment
Estimated time to complete
assignment
Number of
responses
11-20 hours 21
01-10 hours 17
21-30 hours 10
31-40 hours 7
Less than 1 hour 3
More than 40 hours 1
![Page 14: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
The marking process
Who marks the assignment? Number of
responses
Marked by one staff member 40
Marked by more than one staff member 17
Marked by other students 8
Self-marked by the student/s responsible 7
![Page 15: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
What techniques are used to mark the assignment? Number of
responses
Comments as well as marks provided 41
Rubric used 33
Marked in stages 22
Equal marks shared by everyone in a student group 15
Verification of identity of students submitting work 13
Plagiarism checking tools used (e.g., Turnitin) 12
Blind marking (i.e., student work is de-identified) 3
Automated analysis or grading of student work 2
![Page 16: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
What feedback do students receive? Number of
responses
Grades in the form of a number or letter 44
Confirmation
(confirmation that work is of acceptable standard)43
Explanation
(recommendations for bringing work up to standard)41
Correction
(flagging of specific shortcomings with student work)39
Elaboration
(supplementary information to extend understanding)25
Diagnosis
(analysis of what may have led to shortcomings or
misconceptions in student work)
22
![Page 17: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
2. What would good practice look like?
When university students are asked to demonstrate their learning using this form of web 2.0 authoring, what academic standards, and assessment and reporting practices are essential or desirable?
Proceedings of national roundtable:
http://web2assessmentroundtable.pbworks.com/
![Page 18: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
2. What would good practice look like?
Affordances:Ensuring an appropriate fit between what Web 2.0 activities
entail and what assessment is trying to achieve
• Open publishing
• Communication styles and texts
• Personal identity and experience
• Co-creation, collaboration, crowdsourcing
• Content management
![Page 19: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Affordances
Open publishing:
• Student work can be made easily accessible to an audience of peers for mutual benefit including reviewing and rating.
• Review and assessment of student work from outside the university can be invited or anticipated.
![Page 20: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Affordances
Co-creation, collaboration, crowdsourcing:
• Group work can scale between a small closed group and a large free-to-join learning community
• Individual contributions to group work can (sometimes) be distinguished.
• Groups can work on large, complex tasks.
![Page 21: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
2. What would good practice look like?
ProcessesSupporting individual and organisational learning throughout the cycle of assessment activities
Design
Implement
MarkFeedback
Review
![Page 22: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Processes
Design rationale• Student learning can’t be assessed with as much effectiveness, reliability
or validity by using any other type of assignment.
• Students strive to achieve excellence more than they would in some other type of assignment.
• Staff manage the assignment related workload more sustainably than with some other type of assignment.
• Another reason ....
![Page 23: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Processes
Implementing how?
• Explain the timing, weighting and criteria
• Show and discus exemplary student work
• Explain academic attribution and citation practices that are expected
• Provide opportunities to practice and show learning based on formative assessment, before submitting work for summative assessment
• Other teaching techniques?
![Page 24: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Processes
Review and monitor using...
• Student feedback about this assignment
• Input from relevant professional or industry advisors
• Longitudinal evaluation of student performance in this assignment
• Academic peer review in learning and teaching forums
• Other methods of continuous improvement....
![Page 25: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
2. What would good practice look like?
PolicyAssessment that is safe and fair for students and staff• disability
• access to IT services or equipment
• appropriate conduct
• identity and privacy
• academic honesty and integrity
• special consideration
• moral rights and copyright
![Page 26: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
3. What works and doesn’t work in real subject teaching settings?
18 subjects @ 5 universities during Semester 1, 2010:
Blogging
Criminal Law
Cultural Studies
Media Studies
Social bookmarking Education
Social networking Japanese
Photo and video
sharing
Communication Design
Economics
Work Integrated Learning
Virtual worldsBusiness
Chinese
Wiki writing
Accounting
Education
Science
Information Technology
Italian
Combined Web 2.0
tools
Document Management
Information Technology
![Page 27: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
We acknowledge contributions by ...Project Advisory Group• Matthew Allen, Bill Anderson, Greg Battye, Robyn Benson, Tracey Bretag, Jenny Buckworth,
Denise Chalmers, Geoffrey Crisp, Leitha Delves, Bobby Elliott, Jacqui Ewart, Glenn Finger, Tom Franklin, Merrilyn Goos, Scott Grant, Ashley Holmes, Christopher Hughes, David Jones, Marj Kibby, Adrian Kirkwood, Mark Lee, Catherine McLoughlin, Beverley Oliver, Kaz Ross, Alison Ruth, Royce Sadler, Mary Simpson, Arthur Winzenried, Katina Zammit, Lynette Zeeng.
Project Reference Group• Michael Abulencia, Robyn Benson, John Benwell, Marsha Berry, Marilys Guillemin, Laura
Harris, Deborah Jones, Gregor Kennedy, Shaun Khoo, George Kotsanas, Lauren O’Dwyer, Jason Patten, Emma Read, Julianne Reid, Gordon Sanson, Cristina Varsavsky.
Project Field-testing Group• Matthew Absolom, Anne Davies, Cathy Farrell, Scott Grant, Terry Hallahan, Michael
Henderson, John Hurst, Ramon Laboto, Warren McKeown, Michael Nott, Kerry Pantzopoulos, Michele Ruyters, Sukunesan Sinnappan, Michael Smith, Sandra Smith, Robyn Spence-Brown, Elizabeth Stewart, John Terrell, Jenny Weight, Lynette Zeeng
ALTC Support for this project has been provided by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd.
(www.altc.edu.au), an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, or the views of individual contributors apart from the project team.
![Page 28: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
We invite you to join in and extend the discussion
• Moodle: www.groups.edna.edu.au/course/view.php?id=2146
• Blog: http://web2assessment.blogspot.com
• Bookmarks: http://www.citeulike.org/tag/assessment20
• Workshops 2010-2011
@ HERDSA, ATN Assessment, ASCILITE, ACE
• Feedback: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22APCVU3JP7
![Page 29: Atn workshop 2010_asw2_a_slides](https://reader034.vdocuments.site/reader034/viewer/2022050808/5483f3acb07959520c8b4a7b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
References
• Chodorow, S. (2000). Scholarship & scholarly communication in the electronic age. Educause Review, 35(1), 86-92. Retrieved 28 November, 2007 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM001B.pdf
• Kakutani, M. (2010, 17 March). Texts without context. [Book review]. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/books/21mash.html?ref=books
• O’Reilly, T., & Battelle, J. (2009). Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On. Special Report for the Web 2.0 Summit, 20-22 October , San Francisco CA. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from http://assets.en.oreilly.com/1/event/28/web2009_websquared-whitepaper.pdf