Assessing e-Learning Interaction
We know that the methods by which we assess our students strongly influences what they learn, and how. It is also claimed by many, as commonsense knowledge, that students are less likely to engage in any demanding course-work activity that does not carry some weighting for summative assessment.
Another commonsense understanding in education today, better grounded through research as well as practice experience, states that it is good for students to learn together - that group work is good for learning.
If collaboration in its own right is valued as a learning support, then it is understandable that teachers seek ways of involving students in group discussion activities, online or face-to-face. Even if not participating, students say (and evidence supports them) that they learn a great deal by reading others' comments and responses.
In a collaborative learning environment, what is the role and limit of vicarious learning? At what point do we say that the level of contribution is so minimal as not to be sufficient or acceptable? Is all participation the same, and is participation always a good thing? What criteria can we apply to help define the nature and extent of participation that is necessary for us to be able to say that 'collaborative learning is occurring'?
One critical point for discussion, raised frequently in the e-learning context where often the conference or discussion forum is the only means for student interaction, is whether or not participation itself should be assessed.
If contributions should count for assessment, what weighting should they receive within the overall course mark, and what criteria can be defined for grading? This is more difficult to decide on than it may seem at first sight.
The critical issues are those of the learning purpose of the group work, a shared and relevant set of assessment criteria (for teachers and for learners) and the quality of feedback - whether given by teacher or peers.
One major issue for assessing CMC activity, or group behaviour in other learning environments, formatively and summatively, is the learning purpose of such activity, and how that purpose can be measured through study of the activity itself.
If one element for assessment is the development of appropriate communication skills within on-line learning environments, then those skills must be developed through use and feedback, and actual contribution to on-line task activities and discussions could (should?) contribute to any grade or mark awarded for module outcomes. Decisions as to the value of individual contributions might not be easily made!
One solution could be to weight assessment grades for 'contribution' in terms of:
presence - just 'being there',
interaction - responding and seeking feedback,
transaction - sharing/exchanging useful information and resources and, perhaps,
transformation where ideas and understanding clearly develop as a function of interaction and transaction?
The usefulness of this rule of thumb is limited unless all concerned agree on a sensible and achievable set of outcome criteria, and agree on what constitutes evidence of meeting them. Which communication skills are to be developed? Sympathy, support, encouragement, objectivity, criticality, equity? A bundle of behaviours would surely combine to promote, or thwart, a 'success' for the group working space? To what extent can (should) we ask the students to take responsibility for assessing, and grading, contributions to conferences?
Some people find that putting thoughts, ideas, and understandings together and posting to the conference, whether they receive feedback or not, is itself very useful for learning. Others gain confidence, and understand the benefit, from seeing the productions of others - whether they interact or not. This is not necessarily to be derogated - lurking is neither anti-social nor dishonest! People learn in different ways and ideally can take what they need from a range of course resources - reading and reviewing, practising, testing, arguing, drafting and reflecting alone or together.
If on the other hand the aim of the conference is to engage and support peer group discussion because it is believed that people learn best together and the intended learning outcomes relate to subject discipline knowledge and understanding, assessed entirely by performance (essay, practical task, exam paper, workplace development) outside of the conference space itself, then assessment of communicative performance within it becomes problematic.
Here the value of the conference interactions for the learning outcomes evidenced by individual group members might be visible in the content of summative assessment submissions, or in feedback elicited from learners once a course is completed and examined, and they are 'in the world' applying the learning?
