Posts Tagged ‘mwt’

Reflecting on Collaborative Assessment

I’m about to start the dreaded task of marking the wiki for Mobile Workforce Technologies.  I struggle with this every time.  I want to encourage student collaboration, but, when it comes to marking it, I want it easy to work out who did what so I can award a ‘mark’.  It’s something that becomes quite nerve wracking at some levels.

For each page in the wiki, there is a main player, the person who started the topic, and put in much, if not most, of the effort.  They have vested their learning in it.  They deserve the recognition for it.  But then, there’s the minor contributors.  They have seen opportunities for expanding on work, for adding to the totallity of the topic.

In previous years, most pages were single author, partly because Luke and I struggled with the notion of collaboration almost as much as the students do.  The eternal question becomes “how will you know who did what?”  We always say that we refer to the history of each page and can work out who contributes what.  So we have a kind of objective way of measuring what’s been going on.  But, it makes the marking so fraught with decisions.  How much effort did each contributor put in?  Is it directly related to the number of edits? The amount of each edit?  How thoroughly do we go through each page to extract the amount of work each student does?

The history does overcome the traditional group work problem of the free loader.  There are no free loaders here.  And, if there are, they are easy to find.  We know who has contributed, who has participated, who has engaged with learning.  We can find them and this becomes evident in the participation mark (this will deserve a post of its own when I get to it).

But the contribution of each student, the measure of their learning, this is where we have our work cut out for us.  How much did each student learn about the core concepts of both the topics and the values of collaborative work environments?  That’s what we’re really measuring. And that’s what we have to find.

Tags: , ,

Wiki Pedagogy in colour

So hot on the heals of the whole EduPunk rethunking, and to elaborate for our wiki paper, Luke suggested a diagram of what wiki pedagogy was in our course. So I’ve put together a first draft trying to demonstrate how things interconnect in our wiki teaching. There are a number of things that we do slightly differently from other work that I’ve seen.

I think the significant thing that we do differently is start with an empty wiki.  Okay, it’s not completely empty, but we only have the core course information in the wiki at day one.  We are developing a set of tutorials very similar to those found in WikiEducator, but modified for TikiWiki.

This means that students have to start the work. The idea is to get them thinking about how community development is facilitated by technology.  They must not only create the course ‘text book’, but they create the community of students who develop this.  I figure that this is an experience that is important — getting things off the ground without any assumption that things are already going, which I sense is a key thing for established LMS.  Everything is already there for the beginning of semester and all the students have to do is absorb.

But not in this course.  There is very little information about the content of the course.  There is some structure, and we’re getting better at putting this in place to guide students, but there really isn’t much.

Wiki Pedagogy

Wiki Pedagogy in Colour (Click for larger version)

The diagram shows some of the things that I think are important in the wiki course.  The Pedagogy is based on ideas about community of practice ideas[1], bringing novices from the peripheries to the centre, providing some pathways for developing knowledge and for developing collaborative workstyles. There’s also a theme of ‘students as designers’[2].  This is in contrast with developing group work practices, because while they are all working together, they are all working separately, so they are really only responsible for their own output, but can build upon the work of others, comment, critique and interact, but not depend on others.

In the diagram, all the tools in the Wiki Learning environment (well, most of them) are listed.  There are really two kinds of tools, which I’ve labeled knowledge production and collaborative.  The knowledge production are generally where thoughts and learnings come together.  These features generally allow the display of developing knowledge and includes images, pages and blogs.  There is generally space to develop an idea in words and pictures.  This is where we assess the more traditional demonstrations of knowledge.

Collaborative features are those that let students engage with one another.  There are comments (and this should probably include the forums, but these tend not to get used too much), private messages (where students send a message to one or more — kind of like email in the wiki) and the shoutbox which is like a open messaging system where a single message can be sent to all participants.  The students kind of like that because the shoutbox appears on every page, and quite often someone responds to them in the shoutbox.  It’s like a multi-threaded public conversation in short bursts.  Very twitterish, now that I think about it.

Essentially, students commence the course at the periphery and sometimes on the edges of the community.  Most of them are not well established in the field as we are almost presenting a new area (mobile workforce technologies).  We have IT students, marketing students, MBA students,    We see many of them move into the community of practice through active engagement with knowledge formation processes.  The CoP surrounds the wiki tools in the wiki learning environment. There is an embeddednes about the whole structure.  Everything happens in the wiki (with the exception of providing students with their passwords which we do through the gradebook of Blackboard.)

All of these features allow students to actively reflect on the processes of knowledge development and construction and maintain their activities in a single space.  It’s a whole environment wrapped up in free software.  You can’t get much better than that.

  1. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. []
  2. Kimber, K and Wyatt-Smith, C, (2006). Using and creating knowledge with new technologies: a case for students-as-designers, Learning, Media and Technology, 31 (1): 19–34 []

Tags: , , ,

Mobile Technologies and Wikis

I’ve been seriously thinking about the wiki course I teach.  Mobile Workforce Technologies used to be Information and Communication Technologies but has had a complete make-over in the last two years.  Part of what is not included is more focus on the business and social processes and less on the technical aspects.  This can only be a Good Thing (TM).  The change in name and focus allowed the change in pedagogical process to happen.  There was also the fellowship which paid for it, so I can’t discount that.  The opportunity to ‘rethink’ provided by the e-learning fellowship was beyond measuring[1].

But I get the sense from a lot of work that’s being done on the use of wikis in learning environments that there is a focus on continuity of the wiki, building upon what previous students have done.  While that is admirable and very useful, I seem to be focusing on a different approach.  One of the things I’ve noticed, particularly in the wikis that I have started only to have them go nowhere (see for instance Information Systems Research).  How do we get people to start engaging in these new tools?  The build it and they will come approach does not seem to work all that well.  I’m pretty sure that building and maintaining communities are two very different activities.  Having an idea is good, but engaging people is hard.

Which brings me to one of the essential differences about the way I use wikis for teaching.  They always start empty.  Not completely empty, but with some instruction and some direction.  I’ve been trying to figure out (and consequently teach) how to get people into new processes.  I figure that coming into an already populated space is kind of easy, but building from scratch? Well, now that requires slightly different approaches.  I suppose it’s similar to implementing any new version of software, new website, new anything really, but to consciously go through the process as a learning exercise is valuable.

The main difference between the learning environment and the work environment, I suppose, is the level to which participation (contribution) is mandated.  In a work environment, it can be relatively easy to refuse to use certain technologies[2], and in the learning environment, we give a reward for (contribution) participation and actually make it mandatory.  I think this forces students/learners to reflect upon the processes of building and implementing new technologies/processes.  I think that will be a required part of their reflection – consider what worked to get people in, what didn’t work, how the process shifts your frame of reference, how people may accept or reject the changes and what could be done about that.

Hmm, yes, need to rewrite the contribution (participation) requirements as well as the reflection requirements.

  1. The Griffith E-Learning Fellowships have since become the Blended Learning Fellowships but I’ll always think of myself as a GELF-ling []
  2. bLotus Notes, I’m talking about YOU! []

Tags: , ,

Theme by RoseCityGardens.com
Modified by Me!