|
Replies:
11
-
Pages:
1
-
Last Post:
Jun 28, 2002 8:12 PM
by: Jim Ventola
|
|
|
Posts:
30
From:
Swinburne University (Melbourne, Australia)
Registered:
3/6/07
|
|
|
|
Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
May 15, 2002 9:00 PM
|
|
Hi, I'm preparing professional staff development training and
resources for using WebCT at our Uni. I've found some great tips and
examples through these discussion topics on most areas, but am looking
for examples on how academic staff might assess student discussion
postings.
I've heard of some courses where posting discussion messages is a
compulsory part of the course, but don't know if this is based on the
number of messages or the quality of messages. Either way, I can see
difficulties.
Has anyone tried this with success? Or know of any examples I could
quote?
Many thanks,
Debbi
|
|
Posts:
6,290
From:
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Registered:
8/2/00
|
|
|
|
Re: Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
May 16, 2002 2:49 PM
in response to:
Debbi Weaver
|
|
Debbi, I make discussions compulsory, but I don't have a marking
rubric; I confess it's rather subjective. However, when telling the
students about the requirement, I say something like this:
"Participation in the Discussion Forums is worth X% of your course
mark.
"WebCT tracks your participation in the Discussion forums. Your
instructors can see how many postings you've read, how many you've
replied to, etc. These reports help determine your participation mark.
You earn your marks by QUALITY participation. To get these marks, you
must read and reply THOUGHTFULLY to postings done by other students
and staff."
Maybe you can find some useful ideas and information using this page
of links:
http://www.ibritt.com/resources/vp_discussion.htm
|
|
Posts:
30
From:
Swinburne University (Melbourne, Australia)
Registered:
3/6/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
May 16, 2002 7:28 PM
in response to:
Kate Britt
|
|
Kate, thanks for replying so promptly!
I like your approach to instructing your students about quality of
their postings. If you don't mind, I'd like to reword this slightly
and offer it to our staff as an example.
The list of links are very useful - I had found some of these but
others are new to me.
|
|
Posts:
6,290
From:
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Registered:
8/2/00
|
|
|
|
Re: Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
May 16, 2002 11:48 PM
in response to:
Debbi Weaver
|
|
Debbi, I don't mind at all if you use my example.
Please let us know if you find any examples of a specific marking
scheme/method for discussion postings.
|
|
Posts:
433
Registered:
3/11/03
|
|
|
|
Re: Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
May 17, 2002 5:17 AM
in response to:
Kate Britt
|
|
Debbi and Kate
Here are some ideas based on my use of the discussion tool. Once I've
decided the specific purpose I want to use the discussion tool for in
a course, and confirmed that marks are warranted, I believe it's
important to establish a consistent point system. Students aren't
encouraged to take part if they aren't sure how their contributions
will be graded or if it's in any way seen to be inconsistent.
It's not the same for every course, but as an example I might award
discussion contribution points along the following lines:
+1 point for every message posted
It's obviously not the main objective, but there's something to be
said for quantity. A busy discussion board, even if some posts are
trivial, encourages others to join in. Participation is what we need
to get the show on the road and keep it there, so I give points just
for showing up.
+2 points for initiating a relevant discussion thread
In every course I have a dummy student (who is really quite clever
usually) that I use to seed the discussions and get things going or
back on track, etc. But I really want to encourage the real students
to pick up the ball and run with it. I consider starting a discussion
worthy of more points. Sometimes much more.
+2 points for posting what I consider the definitive reply to
someone's query or the primary topic on each thread.
This can be awarded to more than one student, depending on the nature
of the topic being discussed. Sometimes there's more than one answer.
I also consider putting the capper on a discussion worthy of more
points.
-2 points for wasting everyone's time.
Off-topic, useless drivel, yakking on about nothing, arguing for the
sake of arguing, and generally not being of much help or not
contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way will cost you. One
thing that really annoys me is the student who will repeat something
someone else has said earlier on the thread or elsewhere or post
something demonstrating their complete lack of understanding of the
topic and then attempt to salvage the posting point by ending with a
lame apology for not being of more help. No such luck. You lose two
points.
Successful discussions usually require a significant time committment.
Losers who waste everyone's time will also not get the point at the
top of this list for merely posting.
-5 points for being rude or crude in any way.
Especially when students get to know each other, they'll sometimes
post comments that are not nice or potentially embarassing to the
intended target or to the others simply viewing the messages. It's
usually intended as a joke, but I prefer to be very careful about
what's permitted in written form in a course. Students get only one or
two strikes at this, and then they're out. Banned from the discussion.
Forfeit all your discussion marks. Proceed directly to Jail. Do not
pass Go.
Depending on the course, the subject matter, and the nature of the
group, the points for each type of post above can vary, but I usually
assign about 70-80% of the discussion marks using this kind of system.
I reserve the rest of the marks for a totally subjective assessment of
whether someone went above and beyond expectations by posting truly
exceptional messages or in some other way making a major contribution
to the discussion. Sometimes the most exceptional contributors don't
post all that often, and I want to have some way of acknowledging them
in the marks department. In most groups, I find about 2-5% of the
class qualifies for some of this bonus in one way or another.
Most often, I grade contributions by discussion thread, compiling the
messages in the thread so I can view them all on the same page. I open
the compiled page in my html editor, add my marks in big bold red type
to each post and re-post it to a locked discussion topic so students
can see the entire thread and how the marks were awarded. I remove the
thread from the original discussion topic so it can't be appended to.
If a student has something to add after the thread has been closed
they can initiate a new thread.
I often notice that as students see the marks being earned some
friendly competition seems to take root. That's when they dig a little
deeper and course discussions become really rewarding for all.
HtH. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Always looking for
ways to improve the system.
DrD
|
|
Posts:
3,156
From:
The NL
Registered:
2/20/09
|
|
|
|
Re: Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
May 17, 2002 5:30 AM
in response to:
Gramma Chekka
|
|
DrD ?!?!
That's a clear story, 2 remarks though:
So no extra credits for humor?
And what might look like time wasters might in fact
be "group binders" of you know what I mean.
Or do I get -2 for this one :-)
Henk
|
|
Posts:
433
Registered:
3/11/03
|
|
|
|
Re: Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
May 17, 2002 5:45 AM
in response to:
Henk Schotel
|
|
Humor is always fun, but be careful about awarding points for it.
Students will get carried away and your discussion board will quickly
fill up with every old joke you wish you'd never have to see again.
What constitutes a time-waster is a judgement call. I gave some
examples, but students tend to be creative in this regard. Not sure
what you mean by group binders but I won't deduct the 2 points for
this one because you made a valid suggestion about humor.
DrD
|
|
Posts:
3,156
From:
The NL
Registered:
2/20/09
|
|
|
Posts:
6,290
From:
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Registered:
8/2/00
|
|
|
|
Re: Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
May 17, 2002 5:05 PM
in response to:
Henk Schotel
|
|
Dr.D, in spite of your strange name, you have some wise advice and
ideas. I do believe in criteria referenced marking, but haven't given
discussions enough consideration, obviously. I like most of your point
system and may begin to incorporate some of it, if that's OK with you.
One comment though. While it's more advanced and detailed than my own
self-confessed subjective system, yours is still mainly subjective,
except for your first point. The others are all subjective:
- you decide what is "a relevant discussion thread"
- "what I consider the definitive reply" has the subjective factor
built into its description
- you decide what's a waste of time (I agree with Henk on this point)
- "rude or crude" -- well I'll give you that one, based on what's
usually seen as netiquette. So I'd add a netiquette link or two on the
marking scheme the students view.
I agree with your comments on the consequences of accepting certain
types of humor. But clever wit, on the other hand, might be rewarded.
Again, subjective. You get +2 for certain parts of your posting, for
example.
One addition to your scheme might be to have the students themselves
grade each other on postings, and use a sampling of these grades along
with your own to average out the scores. Could be very time consuming,
but we instructors don't have anything else to do anyway, right?
|
|
Posts:
433
Registered:
3/11/03
|
|
|
|
Re: Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
May 18, 2002 2:34 PM
in response to:
Kate Britt
|
|
Dear Dr. Kate,
No matter how we try to disguise it with a "system," -all- grading is
inherently subjective. We teachers create the marking keys, either
before or after the student work is submitted, so we effectively
-and-subjectively- decide what will be given credit and what will not.
Even in technical, fact-based subject areas, we decide which
regurgitation of which facts will be rewarded with marks and which
will not.
All I try to do is establish a consistent mechanism so that I and my
students can feel confident that I'm using the same marking scheme at
the end of the course that I used in the beginning. As I intended to
stress above, exactly what type of contribution is assigned points and
how those points are assigned is necessarily course-specific.
My objective is to at least have a system. I take pains to try to
avoid the totally subjective scenario where my awarding of grades
might be biased for or against a student because of an overall
impression of that person that I've developed separately from the
class discussions. In a purely subjective grading environment, I can't
help but be swayed one way or the other by the name of the discussion
contributor. My normal human biases could become apparent to the
class, and could negatively impact the effectiveness of the discussion
tool in the course.
It's up to each teacher in each course to determine what is a relevant
topic, what is a definitive or even an adequate reply to another
student's query, and what crosses the line in terms of rudeness and
crudeness, etc. These things cannot be prescribed by any
one-size-fits-all formula. They are course and subject matter
dependent. Once the teacher knows what she wants in the course, then I
recommend establishing the "criteria referenced marking" system
accordingly. I also recommend communicating as much of it as possible
to the class rather than letting them find out the hard way,
after-the-fact.
As to clever wit, it's usually its own reward to the clever and witty
student. True and original wit does not require marks to promote it.
Likewise, humor. Just let it flow if it wants to. I also don't assign
marks to my students just for breathing. They can do that on their own
if they feel like it, and I don't have time to monitor it.
We need to allow students to demonstrate a little creativity and
independent thought without assigning marks to it. Unless it's a
creative writing course, wit, humor, and other forms of creative
expression should flow naturally and not be "guided" by a marking key.
I also find that appreciation of humor and wit are very much in the
eyes of the beholder. Subjective in the extreme. A great many people
have no sense of humor whatsoever, or they think that by definition
humor only comes in the form of the one-liner acid-dipped put-downs
made popular by modern TV sitcoms. They could be hopelessly confused
and quickly alienated from the discussion group if the teacher began
using her perception of humor in recognizing those kinds of
contributions in the marks department.
Two words of caution about having students grade each other's work:
Avoid it.
Friendly competition is fine, but students generally are not objective
enough, much less qualified, to grade or even simply rate each other's
work in any but a superficial way. They will almost always let their
personal feelings for each other get in the way. Call me cynical, but
invariably the exercise degenerates into one of exacting retribution
for a previous perceived undeserved criticism. In the end, student
grading of each other's work, even if only for a small part of the
overall mark, creates discord within the group and inhibits students
from joining into discussions. At least that's my experience.
There is something else I left out of my earlier suggested grading
system. Again, depending on the course, I'd seriously consider
assigning/deducting style points to/from any online discussion. The
currently overwhelming popularity of online chats has fostered an
entirely new written language. That abbreviated langauage is changing
(mostly growing) daily, and while it's designed to speed up
communication by reducing keystrokes, I'm not so sure it's a good
thing to be promoting in courses. Along the same lines,
capitalization, punctuation, and following the basic rules of grammar
are rapidly disappearing.
iykwim, it can be a real discussion killer unless every student in the
class and the teacher is totally comfortable with it. ykybotlw u start
using it urself.:) i hiwth. if ur sitd about this go 2
http://www.solscape.com/chat/acronyms.html
cul8r,
DrD
|
|
Posts:
6,290
From:
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Registered:
8/2/00
|
|
|
|
Re: Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
May 18, 2002 8:02 PM
in response to:
Gramma Chekka
|
|
REHI Dr.D,
TNX 1.0E6
YKYBOTLW you want to continue with this kind of thing.
WRT "...having students grade each other's work:
Avoid it...At least that's my experience." FWIW, my experience has
been successful. In fact, before I began this method, I did a test run
with one class. (I know, not a huge sample base, but...) I set out the
specific marking guidelines and point system, then mark a student's
essay, and have two of their peers mark it as well. The three marks
for EVERY essay in the class were within a range of +/- 0.5 of each
other. So your experience with competition and retribution among
students during peer marking doesn't match my own. Hmmm.
But I know this system is a lot of work for an instructor and not
practical in many situations. I was using this system as a way to help
new essay-writers also learn the tools for reading, analyzing, editing
and constructively criticizing other writing.
IAE, NRN
Kate
|
|
Posts:
100
Registered:
12/22/07
|
|
|
|
Re: Assessing discussion postings
Posted:
Jun 28, 2002 8:12 PM
in response to:
Kate Britt
|
|
As an English teacher, I am glad when I see teachers supporting solid
practice, like capitalization and punctuation. The discussion
postings in WebCT often look awful because the editor requires two
carriage returns to create a new paragraph--it enforces a block style.
Then too, you have to embed commands for italics. But with a bit of
trouble you can post reasonably formatted English. I haven't required
this of my students, but I do let them know that they CAN add rulers
and such if they like.
One ambiguity: is the discussion board for fostering group cohesion
through discussion and the sharing of immediate responses or is it for
publishing results of careful meditation and research? Chat or
Journal? The evaluation would vary.
I doubt I've always made clear to my students when I want one and when
the other.
|
|
|
|
