Category: Module 3

Using technology for student assessment has its pros and cons.  Other than using technology to track student progress, which we all do and how would we do it any other way, I have not used technology to assess student progress very much.  I have played around with Moodle a bit to see what is possible and it seems quite promising. I will try to point out some of the opportunities and challenges with using technology to support student assessment.

Opportunities:
Assessment that occurs online allows students to take quizzes and tests anywhere at any time, without the distractions of having people around them. However, there could be time restrictions put on by the instructor to ensure fairness.  I like that Moodle affords multiple attempts on a test. This is something that is very difficult to do in a f2f class due to time restraints.  As educators we know that every student is different, so many students could benefit by re-taking a test.  Things like electronic submission and auto-marking can help instructors with efficiency.  Feedback becomes more prompt and useful, which directly speaks to one of Chickering’s seven principles (Chickering, 1996).  Gibbs & Simpson (2005) say that when students receive feedback too late, “the feedback is irrelevant to their ongoing studies and is extremely unlikely to result in additional appropriate learning.”  This feedback can help diagnose student’s strengths and weaknesses, and isn’t this the point of assessment and education in general? Technology can also help to motivate students, which will directly impact outcomes.

Challenges:
There are many problems that can arise when technology is used to support assessment.  The first thing I think of is that the methods of assessment themselves can impact the outcome.  Some students may not be comfortable and/or familiar with the features used in Moodle and other LMS.  More than ever, I think that a balance needs to be found that gives students choices in how they are assessed.  Another problem is the reliability of the the technology that is used.  Glitches and power issues always find a way to creep in when least expected.  I think of how some provincial exams are taken online now and I know first hand of instances where the technology was not being cooperative.  One must always have a plan B in place.  Although online feedback can be instantaneous, it is missing a human element.  The comments can be very general resulting, which erases any benefits of increased speed.

As with anything, a healthy balance needs to be found.  Teachers must consider the pros and cons and determine what course of action would be best for their classes.  The methods used may even differ from class to class and year to year.  I look forward to incorporating more technology in the assessment that I use in my classes.

References:
Chickering, A.W. & Ehrmann, S.C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6. Retrieved from
http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples.htm

Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Retrieved on June 27 from
http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf

There have been many great ideas in posts that precede this one.  As I share my thoughts, I am certain that many, if not all, of my ideas will have been mentioned beforehand.

To begin to deal with the onslaught of emails, Trinh should consider the following 10 points in no particular order:

1. My initial thought was that Trinh needed a teaching assistant or e-moderator who could field the questions coming through email.  It is important to note that “the e-moderator does not require extensive subject matter expertise” but only needs to be at the “same level” as the students (Anderson, 2008).

2. This led to me thinking that Trinh could place more of an emphasis on collaboration among students and even give marks for student involvement.  In ETEC 500, my classmates were great for not only critiquing others work, but also chiming in and answering course related questions. Trinh would need to foster this type of environment and “set and communicate the intellectual climate of the course” (Anderson, 2008).

3. I know how much I appreciated our Wimba session, as well as chat meetings of the past where the instructor was involved.  In ETEC 531, the instructor lead the first session and then expected students to take the reigns.  I gladly stepped up the plate the first time and it was a good exercise to be in charge of the discussion.  This collaboration and participation could be held bi-weekly, either as chat only or mixed in with voice.

4. I think Trinh needs to create different discussion threads that touch on specific situations.  These sections could be build up more and more as the course is taught; Trinh would need to make notes and keep track of what new topics arise.

5. Similarly, Trinh should have a growing list of FAQ’s that should be a go-to-first location for students.

6. Trinh definitely needs to have one location for communication.and make that clear to the students.

7. Expectations need to be clearly laid out and conveyed.

8. The more organized the course is the less confusion and the less questions and email there will be. Trinh needs to put time into making the course linear and easy to understand.

9. The 150 students need to be placed into sub-groups.  My ETEC 511 class did not put the discussion thread into groups and so each day there were 100+ posts to sift through.  It really makes a difference when there are only groups of 30 instead of 150.  Too small is not good either as I am currently in a course where all discussions are with groups of 4 or 5.  I find that I always initiate and can wait day before hearing any kind of a reply.

10. Trinh would be wise to conduct a student survey asking about the course and the instruction.  Any input would only help Trinh better meet the needs of future students.

References

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a Theory of Online Learning. In: Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University. Accessed online 20 June 2011
http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008_Anderson-Online_Learning.pdf

Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.

Consider what Anderson means when he describes the attributes of learning in terms of being learner-, knowledge-, assessment- and community-centred.

Anderson stresses that to be learner-centred is to be aware of the “unique cognitive structures and understandings that learners bring to the learning context” (Anderson, 2008).  As teachers, we need to make an effort to get to know who we are instructing.  This is not always an easy thing to do.  In fact, it is very difficult.  Teaching in a f2f class may provide more opportunity to get to know students, but it does not mean that relationships will form.  I can only imagine that getting to know students in an online environment would be even more challenging.  The teacher can only know what is voluntarily given.  There is no body language and tone is much harder to read in postings and emails.

“Online learning neither advantages or disadvantages knowledge-centred learning in comparison to campus-based learning” (Anderson, 2008).  Building curriculum for f2f classes or online environments may look different, however, there has been much research to show that there is little to no significant difference in the results of the learner.  The assessment of the content can become the focus and online instructors need to be wary of heaping on too much work.  Anderson speaks of some great tools for online learners to tap into to ease the burden of assessment (computer-marking, automated tutors, social networking).

Community-centered learning relies heavily on the those that make up the community.  Anderson points out that not everyone is in agreement as to what the expectation is of individuals in a community, and so each will look different.

To what extent have you experienced on-line or mixed-mode courses that achieved this kind of learning environment?

I have seen communities form in my MET experience many times over.  I am in my sixth course and some of the communities have been very vocal and supportive and others have been non-existent or even negative.  Putting a focus on strengthening online communities is important. Being a part of a professional learning community (PLC), like we have in the MET program, is fulfilling.

How might you use the learning technologies tools you have at your disposal to help you to create meaningful interactions?

Presently, I teach f2f and much of what I do to create meaningful interactions is in the class and involves participation on the part of my students.  As I venture into the world of blended learning, I expect to use things like asynchronous and synchronous discussion forums to pull my students together.  This is still participation, but it will look different.  I will need to be prepared to fumble my way through facilitating these kinds of activities.

References

Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a Theory of Online Learning.  In: Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University.