Worth it? Findings from a study of how academics assess students' Web 2.0 activities

Educational commentators have offered many pedagogical rationales for using Web 2.0 to support learning in higher education, and academics are being encouraged to find ways for their students to use social web technologies. Questions arise as to the value of these activities compared to more conventional assignments, and whether implementing such changes to student assessment is worth the effort. We conducted a survey of academics’ assessment of students’ Web 2.0 activities in Australian universities and found that this form of assessment is being conducted by a small number of academics, in a range of fields of study, but mainly in Humanities and Social Sciences, with varying kinds of intended and actual learning outcomes. Blogging and wiki-writing predominate, low and medium-stakes assessment are most common, and different methods of marking and feedback are in use. Qualitative feedback from the survey and follow-up interviews gave further insights into benefits and challenges ofWeb 2.0 assessment in relation to pedagogy, policy and practice. It appears that academics’ conservative approaches to conducting assessment and their novice approaches to utilising social web technologies are factors which seriously limit realising the potential of Web 2.0 for medium or high-stakes assessment. Keywords: assessment; assignments; higher education; social web; Web 2.0 (Published: 3 February 2012) Citation: Research in Learning Technology 2012, 20 : 16153 - DOI: 10.3402/rlt.v20i0/16153

[1]  Tom Franklin,et al.  Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education , 2007 .

[2]  Alan Levine,et al.  The 2009 Horizon Report , 2009 .

[3]  Margaret Hamilton,et al.  Web 2.0 authorship: Issues of referencing and citation for academic integrity , 2008, Internet High. Educ..

[4]  Chris Rust,et al.  A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice , 2005 .

[5]  Raja Maznah Raja Hussain,et al.  Empowering learners as the owners of feedback while YouTube-ing , 2009, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ..

[6]  Tom Franklin and Mark Van Harmelen.  Web 2.0 for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education , 2007 .

[7]  Panagiota Alevizou,et al.  A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education , 2010 .

[8]  James Hartley,et al.  Does correction for guessing reduce students’ performance on multiple‐choice examinations? Yes? No? Sometimes? , 2009 .

[9]  Margaret Hamilton,et al.  Transforming assessment in higher education: A participatory approach to the development of a good practice framework for assessing student learning through social web technologies , 2010 .

[10]  L. Earl,et al.  Assessment as Learning: Using Classroom Assessment to Maximize Student Learning , 2003 .

[11]  Eugenia M. W. Ng,et al.  A case study of infusing web 2.0 tools for blended learning: Virtual presentations as an alternative means of assessment , 2010 .

[12]  D. Royce Sadler,et al.  Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading , 2009 .

[13]  C. Rust.  The Impact of Assessment on Student Learning , 2002 .

[14]  Denise Whitelock,et al.  Activating Assessment for Learning: Are We on the Way with Web 2.0? , 2010 .

[15]  Wing Lam,et al.  Web 2.0‐based E‐learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching , 2011 .

[16]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On , 2009 .

[17]  Robert James Elliott.  Assessment 2.0 , 2008, iJET.

[18]  Margaret Hamilton,et al.  Students as Web 2.0 Authors: Implications for Assessment Design and Conduct. , 2010 .

[19]  Matt Bower,et al.  Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies , 2008 .

[20]  Judithe Sheard,et al.  Implications for academic integrity of using web 2.0 for teaching, learning and assessment in higher education , 2010 .

[21]  Claire Brooks,et al.  Using Blogging for Higher Order Learning in Large Cohort University Teaching: A Case Study. , 2008 .

[22]  Ulf-Daniel Ehlers,et al.  Web 2.0 – e‐learning 2.0 – quality 2.0? Quality for new learning cultures , 2009 .

[23]  D. Boud.  Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society , 2000 .

[24]  Dirk Schneckenberg,et al.  Web 2.0 and the empowerment of the knowledge worker , 2009, J. Knowl. Manag..

[25]  Jenny Waycott,et al.  Editorial 27(5): Preface to the Special issue- Assessing students' Web 2.0 activities in higher education , 2011 .

[26]  Nina Bonderup Dohn.  Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[27]  Stylianos Hatzipanagos,et al.  Feedback as dialogue: exploring the links between formative assessment and social software in distance learning , 2009 .

[28]  Debbie Richards,et al.  Realising the Potential of Web 2.0 for Collaborative Learning Using Affordances , 2011, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[29]  Jane Seale,et al.  Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design , 2004, Comput. Educ..

[30]  John G. Hedberg,et al.  A framework for Web 2.0 learning design , 2010 .

[31]  Adrian Kirkwood,et al.  Assessment and student learning: a fundamental relationship and the role of information and communication technologies , 2008 .

[32]  D. Sadler.  Fidelity as a precondition for integrity in grading academic achievement , 2010 .

[33]  Betty Collis,et al.  Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: quality perspectives , 2008 .

[34]  Miguel Á. Conde,et al.  Web services layer for Moodle 2.0: a new area of possibilities in web based learning , 2011 .