You are browsing the archive for 2009 May.

Assessing student contributions to a wiki

May 21, 2009 in Assessment

The article Towards a Process for K-12 Students as Content Producers by John Concilus has some great ideas. I really like the way he refers back to well-founded research from an earlier era (eg on process writing and writing for an authentic audience) while discussing the impact of new technology. John’s in-depth article raises lots of interesting issues and explores how tools such as a wiki can be used in student learning without lapsing into over-simplistic promotion of the tool.

One innovation he describes which raises some fascinating issues is the WikiDashboard, which provides a way to analyse individual contributions to a collaborative wiki. WikiDashboard shows a list of users who have contributed to a page and quantitative data about the amount each user has contributed and when they did so.

wikidashboard

While this tool provides fascinating information on who has edited a wiki article, I have some strong reservations about its use as an assessment tool. My main concern is that it provides an easier way to quantify contributions but does not really provide any qualitative insights into the quality of these contributions. The danger here is related to the assessment dilemma – we tend to assess the things that are easy to measure, but these are often less important than the things which are harder to measure.

If we want to assess educational outcomes such as higher order thinking, analysis and critical thinking, we need to assess qualitative evidence. While the Wiki Dashboard is a great tool that can help an assessor find qualitative evidence, the data it provides is not in itself such evidence. It can help us find who wrote what content on a collaborative wiki, but we still need to assess each person’s contribution qualitatively and avoid any tendency to use its percentages in allocating grades.

Bookmark and Share

Wiki markup in Moodle and Mediawiki

May 17, 2009 in Tools


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /var/www/vhosts/verso.co.nz/httpdocs/wp-content/plugins/buddypress-docs/includes/addon-wikitext.php on line 88

Some have asked whether wiki markup is dead, but when editing a wiki or teaching others to do so, I usually prefer to use markup tags to format text and create links. Why? Because the WYSIWYG editors tend to be:

  • a bit unreliable and don’t seem well-supported across all browsers.
  • likely to cause problems with boundaries – eg further editing next to a list item can cause new text to be mistakenly inserted into the list. This can cause major confusion for new users. Since often the only solution is to edit the source anyway, knowing how to do so becomes an essential skill.
  • not very intuitive to use – eg some of the buttons in the Mediawiki toolbar below are obvious, others much less so:

wysiwyg editor toolbar

There are some important differences between the markup used by various wiki systems. Because I use a range of wiki software (Mediawiki and PMWiki for my own sites, Moodle wiki and PBWiki for some of my courses) I find I sometimes use the wrong markup for the one I’m using and need to refer to the documentation.

Here’s a handy table comparing the markup for a few common functions of Mediawiki and Moodle wiki:

Function Mediawiki Moodle wiki
Small heading ====heading==== !heading
Medium heading ===heading=== !!heading
Large heading ==heading== !!!heading
Internal link text to display [text to display | pagename]
External link [http://www.verso.co.nz text to display] [text to display | http://www.verso.co.nz]
Bold ”’bold text”’ __bold text__
Line break <br> %%


There are other differences between the markup of various functions, of course, but in my view headings and links are the most significant because of their semantic purpose.

Bookmark and Share

How secure are your course materials online?

May 13, 2009 in Learning technology, Tools

If you’re using an online service such as Google Docs to share your teaching materials or for students to publish their work, you’ll never want to see a news item like this:


Gurgle Docs Is History

Disgruntled employee pulls the plug

Earlier today, a Gurgle spokesperson expressed regret that the popular document sharing service is no longer available.

“Everyone kind of assumed we had a big server farm running Gurgle Docs, but actually it was all on an old iMac in someone’s office. When that employee was laid off recently, he formatted the hard disk on the way out.”

The spokesperson continued that while the company had no backup and no way of restoring users’ documents, he was sure that users did have backups of any important files.
(cont on page 3)


Tongue in cheek, of course, but there’s a serious issue here: how to ensure the security and continued availability of online resources. Whether they are resources developed by the teacher or the learner, if there is only one accessible copy the resource is not secure.

While the incident described in the spoof news item above is very unlikely, a number of things can go wrong with online services. Firstly, the service can withdraw or stop developing a feature, such as Google did with Notebook which is no longer available for new users. If you’re lucky (as with Notepad), the service provider will let you export your data. Another example is the withdrawal of an RSS feed service by Facebook.

A more serious problem is when a service fails for business or technical reasons – this happened recently when ma.gnolia had a serious technical failure and user data was lost. Even if you were lucky enough to retrieve all or some of your data, this would clearly be a major disruption to a teacher relying on the service for course delivery.
(See also http://mashable.com/2009/01/30/magnolia-data-loss/)

Some learner-contributed content (such as forum postings) tend to be reasonably transient, and their loss might not be a disaster. But imagine the problems caused by loss of access to data where learners are encouraged to create an e-portfolio directly in Google Docs. As I’ve suggested elsewhere in relation to YouTube’s Quick Capture, it’s much safer to create local files and upload them than to work directly in the online service.

When incorporating the use of online services into a course, I recommend that teachers:

  • Check the terms of service – who owns the copyright of contributed content? Can the service provider start changing for the service? Do they have the right to withdraw the service without notice? Do they have the right to delete any content without notice?
  • Advise learners on clear strategies for ensuring backups of all files, and on any limitations imposed by the terms of service.

Loss of data can cause irreparable damage to a student cohort. Online services can prove to be very valuable components to teaching and learning, but we do need to take a few sensible precautions to ensure security of content and ongoing access. Most of us have experienced loss of data through careless backup procedures: the loss of teacher-generated and learner-generated content for a whole course could be much more embarrassing!

Bookmark and Share