CCK09 Assessment online using a community approach

In this What about Assessment by Tracy, she writes: “We do have a shaky sense of “objectivity” in grading that we don’t like to talk about much. Unless there are clear right and wrong answers (which there are sometimes, but very often NOT), it gets muddy.” I think it depends on what we are assessing. And more importantly, why assessment based on right and wrong answers in an online environment?

Downes writes:

I commented, and not purely in jest, when talking about assessment. I want to change the system of assessment in schools because right now we have tests and things like that that are scrupulously fair, particularly distance learning where we outline the objectives the performance metrics and the outcomes and all of that. I want to scrap that system. I want testing to be done by at random by comments from your peers and other people and strangers based on no criteria whatsoever and applied unequally and unfairly.

And people say, “Well, why would you want that?”

And I said, “Well, that’s the way the world works.”

If we are assessing online learning, what would be the ideal and practical way of assessing? For instance, Jenny, Roy and I have completed the research on (a) blogs and forums as communication and learning tools in MOOC and (b) the ideals and reality of MOOC on CCK08.  We have suggested a peer review on our 2 research papers as posted in the CCK09 forum from CCK08 and 09 participants.  Would this be an assessment on us as a team by the network (community of CCK08 and CCK09)? Would this help us (our research group) and the community in finding ways in assessment on research and learning?  We are greatly thankful to those who have provided us with valuable comments.

If we are assessing people (networkers) online about creativity, innovation, technology and critical thinking skills, then a more holistic approach using a community peer review and assessment may be more beneficial to the networkers and the community.  The repurposing, recreating and remixing of ideas and contents using various tools, story telling, videos making, and blog posting would stimulate the networker(s) to develop new and useful resources and thus contribute to the community.   

This would add value to the community in terms of social capital.  This would further encourage more networkers to participate and engage in social networking as they find it both fun and enjoyable not only to consume such resources, but to contribute in the production of resources, and to cooperate with others in networks.   Wouldn’t it be the ideal way of developing educators and learners through such cooperative and collaborative efforts, activities or projects in the networks?

Tracy said:” if I was taking cck09 for credit (and thus, actually doing the assignments), would I be OK with my peers in that course”

For me, sure! I would be happy if my blog, forum posts and other artefacts be openly critiqued and evaluated by others. This would not only help me in developing myself, by being open and responsive to others’ comments and feedback, but would provide some insights for me to help and develop my learners in their course of study. 

Learning and assessment is about action – by connecting and interacting with others.

In this post on Connectivism The Multiple Choice that I wrote last year Oct 7, 2008:

3. For me to respond to connectivism and answer why it is a new theory.

1.  Write a paper

2. Communicate with my readers in a clear concise manner – start with this draft

3. Communicate, collaborate and cooperate with stakeholders, participants, and negotiate

4. Connect with the networks

5. Explain a complex learning theory – connectivism in a simple way

So, I have set up some assessment criteria for me to achieve.  Have I achieved them all?  Still I am on this journey, I suppose.

Besides, I think an e-portfolio approach would be useful for my learning.

In summary, I am finding that network assessment would be part of my learning journey.  It is part of the learning, not just a project, an artefact, or an eportfolio.  

Again from Downe’s post:

And the more I thought about this, you know, I struggle with myself all the time and I wonder, was it indoctrination or were they right? And after many years, I’ve come to the conclusion they were right. And so there is this idea of the network, there is this idea of distinctness and diversity in an environment where people are encouraged not to be the same, but to be different. I like to think I have fulfilled my teacher’s expectation, having internalized the encouragement not to consume and to absorb the message from the mass media, but to create, to be that media, to be the artist, to be the writer, to be the videographer.

I would resonate that network provides a wonderful media for me to be part of, to learn with and be assessed.  I love to be that part of the media too.

In this Dave’s post on Overcoming obstacles – a practical guide he writes:

Overcoming obstacles – learning communities
You can’t collaborate alone (JM). Find learning communities. Connect with other people like you. You can all come to edtechtalk, we’d love to have you. There are tons of other great ways to communicate. Find one (or several) you like. If you are at all careful IT WILL SAVE YOU TIME. seriously.

I found it most useful in assessment and learning.

Have you found your learning community?

Are you comfortable with such peer online assessment?  What are the challenges?   How would you overcome those challenges?

John

Grading of students by Professor in University

This is my response to Must a Professor Grade His Students by Daniel Lemire dated 13 Jan 09.

I don’t see much difference in the grades when it comes to graduate education. Though someone may obtain an A due to the excellent “performance” or “achievement”, graduates would be “expected” to excel in their studies. So, should a professor grade the students?  I think it depends.
First, if the university stipulates it as a requirement, there are standards to be achieved, not just pass or fail. This may also be the expectation of the employers and government. Second, in some countries, the grading of subjects in the graduate courses are under A, B, C etc. and most students are expected to achieve those standards before they could be awarded the postgraduate degree. Again, if professors are not to grade them, who are the ones doing that? Third, I am interested in understanding the grading system in Canada, i.e. A is a “pass” normally, and B is “marginal pass”, really interesting. This to me sounds good in that every student is motivated to learn, not so much for the grade in accordance to a typical assessment. Will this be similar to the competent/not yet competent concept under competency based training and assessment? My interpretation is: If one is competent, he/she is 100% competent, not 50%. For a surgeon, competency means that he/she can perform the surgery to the standard 100% of the time required. Otherwise it is 100% failure. Isn’t it?
Finally, I think this is a complicated issue and cannot be judged solely from an educator’s point of view. It depends on the context, the grading and accreditation system of the course, the expectation of the students and employers, and most importantly, the educational value out of such grading.
Comment by Sui Fai John Mak — 14/1/2009 @ 19:32

Identity, integrity, risks and assessment in a connective world

This is my response to the forum discussion on  Connective World raised by Jim McKendry, Lisa Lane and George Siemens http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/moodle/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=1159

This is interesting.  We seem to touch on an important and sensitive subject: integrity amongst educators and participants.  

Trust, honesty and openness are the connerstones of network learning (in my humble opinion IMHO), that was also mentioned by George, after my response to Catherine in previous forum discussion. Otherwise some conversations, critiques become apparent appreciative inquiries (sorry, I don’t mean to be negative), where participants would praise with responses to each others, in order to please and concur, (or the sandwich approach), in order not to offend each other, which sounds “good” in a class. 

Fake critiques and conversations are happening in many social networks.  Is it the reason of the avatars in Second Life?  Are the conversations “really reflective” or honest saying of the participants?  Just for fun or exaggeration? 

On the other hand, as tensions amongst participants build up, some people would stay away from the forum, in order to avoid conflicts.  So even networks (or this group) have norms (and implicit rules).  Is it?

Video chatting and posting is one way to identify people.  Due to time zone problem, I found it difficult to attend some “Elluminate” or “Ustream” sessions here in Sydney, Australia.   Is it a problem for others?

Are people in networks (this group in particular) willing to identify themselves in open space?  How many participants are willing to openly comment on their work practices, associations, organisations, society or community in public?  Is politics, religion still a taboo especially if ones identity is revealed?  Are people willing to speak the “truth” from their hearts?

Is it true that network could provide that protection for people who wishes to engage and connect if they hide their true identity?  Is people free to voice their opinions with minimum risk if they stay anonymous?  Again, is it why Second Life is so popular? Is risk an important factor in network learning?

If this is happening in “our network”, how could we know if the blogs, forums, facebook posts or even wiki  (in this and other networks) are genuine or authentic (both content and personal experience)?  Are they real or just imaginary in such a virtual, digital age?  Any research done in this area?

Is on-line assessment trustworthy?  Are there lots of plagiarism in on-line network assessment?  If that is the case, how could one detect and avoid it?   These all belong to another big topic that deserve a new post.. Who would like to start?