Assessment

The following is the plan for the course assessment. If you have better ideas, queries or concerns, please raise them via email directly to Christopher.Dann@usq.edu.au, the as the course examiner. Detailed marking criteria are below.

Overview

There are two assignments for this course

  1. Assignment 1 is worth 60% of the course mark and is due on the 9th September.
  2. Assignment 2 is worth 40% of the course mark and is due on the 21st October.

Assignment 1

This assignment is informed by the idea that the successful practice for a learner in a (one) Connectivist perspective (Downes, 2007) is to practice and reflect. It is also informed by the idea that it is only through participation that you can gain a true appreciation of the advantages, difficulties and implications of network and global learning. In completing this assignment you will be required to map your participation (practice) in your range of network and global learning communities. In doing so, you will be exploring and applying ideas from literature around network and global learning with an explicit focus on transforming your own practice as: learner, student and teacher. A particular focus will be on constructing the knowledge required to plan an intervention to enhance/transform your own teaching practice (very broadly defined) through an application of an adjusted networked and global learning context.

There are two parts to the assignment summarized in the following table.

Description Worth Task
Participation and Mapping 30 marks (30%) Participate in a range of network learning activities as student and learner and Identify the range of artifacts documenting your N&GL and sharing it via your blog. You may need to create alias’s.
Looking back and forward 30 marks (30%) Formal Essay reflecting back on your participation and identifying insights and resources for Assignment 2.

Participation and Mapping

As you work through Module 1 you will be reading and engaging with a range of literature around network and global learning. To provide a focus for this literature and concrete experience in which to apply and investigate its insights, you will be required to participate in a range of network and global learning communities using a variety of different tools.

The Three P’s of Pedagogy– one of the readings from Week 1 – talks about the idea of a Networked Society as it relates to pedagogy.  You will use your individual network to make public implications and considerations drawn from it as you learn about network and global learning and apply those ideas to you as: student, learner and teacher. In another of the week 1 readings, Downes (2011) describes a process of aggregation, remixing, re purposing and feeding forward that provides more insight into a possible personalisation of pedagogy”.

The foci for your N&GL pedagogy should be on:

  1. You as student.
    For this course you are being asked to make use of a range of tools including your own blog, a course blog and perhaps others that will be discovered as the semester progresses. As part of participating in this course you are being asked to use these tools, contribute others and support the ideas of others in this course as we encounter network and global learning to transform your approach to being a student at USQ and a learner in your context. Away from a normal “online” (or perhaps on-campus) student to a “networked” student. Participation in this assignment is part of that. You will also be expected to use these tools to map your existing Personal Learning Network and a Personal Knowledge Management process specific to your needs for this course drawing on people and resources both from within and outside of the course.
  2. You as learner.
    You are to choose something you would like to learn. It might be playing a musical instrument, baking bread, creative writing, how to play WarCraft, or something related to your professional life. You will then plan, implement and reflect upon the use of network and global learning to achieve your chosen learning objective.The suggestion is that what you learn be something of direct personal interest to you and not something you would typically learn as part of formal education.
  3. You as teacher.
    The ultimate goal for this course is for you to develop insights into how your network and global learning landscape changes as you learn something new and develop the implications for transforming your own teaching practice. As you work through Module 1 you will identify what aspect of your teaching you wish to transform and use this as a focus through which to understand, analyse and critique the ideas presented in the course resources. In this context, “teaching” is interpreted as you doing something that helps others learn. It is not limited to normal classroom or formal teaching.

Marking – Part 1

Participation is marked by a combination of

  1. Initial analysis – 10 marks; and,
  2. Manual marking – 20 marks.

Initial analysis

Criteria Missing
0-24%
Inadequate
25-49%
Acceptable
50-74%
Exemplary
75-100%
Posts
5 marks
Fewer than 4 posts

Average word count is less than 50 words

Between 4- 6 and 20 posts

Average word count is between 50 and 100 words

Between 7 and 10 posts

Average word count is between 100 and 200 words

More than 10 posts

Average word count is more than 200 words

Connections

2 marks

Fewer than 10% of posts have links to other participants Between 10 and 20% of posts have links to other participants Between 20 and 30% of posts have links to other participants More than 30% of posts have links to other participants
Other links

3 marks

Fewer than 10% of posts have links to other resources Between 15 and 30% of posts have links to other resources Between 30 and 50% of posts have links to other resources More than 50% of posts have links to other resources.

Manual marking

The rationale for the manual marking is to allow for some distinction between participation illustrating lower levels of reflection and learning and higher quality participation. Your use of any other tools you use (and mention in your blog posts) will be examined to look for evidence of participation and mapping on four fronts

  1. As student (6%);
  2. As learner (6%);
  3. As teacher (6%);
  4. Use of other (non-blog) tools (2%).
Criteria Missing
0
Inadequate
1
Acceptable
2
Exemplary
3
As Student
6 Marks
Little or no evidence in posts of discussion “as student”.

Little or no correct use of NGL principles.

Little or no participation as student evident until days before the due date.

Largely descriptive of what happened and limited to personal responses.

Includes some unrelated NGL principles linked to participation.

Discussion “as student” is limited in quantity.

Uses NGL principles to understand participation and explain what happened.

Draws on a range of NGL ideas that are linked together as part of the explanation.

Discussion “as student” is of an appropriate quantity

NGL principles are used to develop a reasoned understanding of participation, draw conclusions and identify future plans.

A range of NGL principles are combined and linked to broader concepts/practice.

Discussion “as student” is of an appropriate quantity

As Learner
6 Marks
Little or no evidence in posts of discussion “as learner”

Little or no correct use of NGL principles

Little or no participation as learner evident until days before the due date.

Largely descriptive of what happened and limited to personal responses.

Includes some unrelated NGL principles linked to participation.

Discussion “as learner” is limited in quantity.

Uses NGL principles to understand participation and explain what happened.

Draws on a range of NGL ideas that are linked together as part of the explanation.

Discussion “as learner” is of an appropriate quantity

NGL principles are used to develop a reasoned understanding of participation, draw conclusions and identify future plans.

A range of NGL principles are combined and linked to broader concepts/practice.

Discussion “as learner” is of an appropriate quantity

As Teacher
6 Marks
Little or no evidence in posts of discussion “as teacher”

Little or no correct use of principles from NGL or other literature

Little or no participation as learner evident until days before the due date.

Largely descriptive of what happened and limited to personal responses.

Includes some unrelated principles from the NGL or other literature, which are linked to participation “as teacher”.

Discussion “as teacher” is limited in quantity.

Uses NGL principles to understand participation and explain what happened.

Draws on a range of NGL ideas that are linked together as part of the explanation.

Discussion “as teacher” is of an appropriate quantity

NGL principles are used to develop a reasoned understanding of participation, draw conclusions and identify future plans.

A range of NGL principles are combined and linked to broader concepts/practice.

Discussion “as teacher” is of an appropriate quantity

Participation with other network tools (e.g. diigo and anything else)
2 marks
No use of tools other than the blog Participation is limited in some way (e.g. intermittent, shallow, doesn’t fully use the tool etc.) Participation is consistent, integrated, effective and contributes to learning. Participation is significant, widespread, innovative and/or contributes to the learning of learner and others

Looking back and forward

The second part of the assignment will be a collection of three blog posts written in a slightly more formal style (approaching that of an academic essay). The blog posts will use and respond to the following titles and be within your main blog. (the one used for part A)

  1. As a student, participation in NGL was useful for me.
  2. As a learner, participation in NGL was useful for me.
  3. How NGL can inform my role as teacher.
    This means how might you change how you interact with the N&GL environment around you,  your pedagogical choices, what you teach and subsequently how and what your learner’s learn.

Each blog post is expected to be around 800 words long and should be consistent with common standards of academic writing.

Important: If you’d like to escape the confines of writing an “essay” for any or all of these blog posts (e.g. make a video or some other online artefact) please approach the Course Examiner. This alternate practice is encouraged, but it’s not for everyone.

Criteria

As student and learner

The first two posts required as part of the “Looking back” component (“as student” and “as learner”) will be marked using the following rubric. Each post will contribute 10 marks.

Standard Missing
0-20%
Inadequate
21-49%
Acceptable
50-75%
Exemplary
76-100%
Clear position adopted and supported by the argument
1 mark
No clear position taken about whether NGL was useful or not to this role

The argument clearly does not support the position

Clear position taken about the usefulness of NGL to this role.
Argument clearly supports the position.
Literature/theory
4 marks
No literature used to support the argument Use of literature limited in terms of quantity, quality or appropriateness to the role. A range of appropriate literature (largely as provided by the course) used
Some attempt made to identify connections between the literature used.
Excellent use of literature to support the argument
A good array of literature specific to the role and context used to transform understanding of the participation in this role.
A variety of perspectives from the literature visible
Links to participation
4 marks
No links to participation as student Some links to participation, but not always supporting the argument.
Largely limited to description of what happened.
Explains how the participation relates to the argument. Identifies and explores the significant aspects of the participation, linking all together and relating to the argument.
Literacy
1 mark
Significant flaws in language, literacy, referencing or use of the NGL environment (linkage, attribution etc). Some flaws in language, literacy, referencing or use of the NGL environment. Very few flaws in language, literacy, referencing or use of the NGL environment. No few flaws in language, literacy, referencing or use of the NGL environment.

As teacher

Standard Missing
0-20%
Inadequate
21-49%
Acceptable
50-75%
Exemplary
76-100%
Clear possibilities identified as how NGL will change teaching
3 marks
No specific possibilities of how NGL will change role teaching obvious. Possibilities for change described.
Possibilities limited in variety, scope, detail or number (less than 2)
At least 2 distinct possibilities for change explained.
Linkage to context clear.
Likely impacts, costs, benefits and limitations examined
At least 2 distinct possibilities for transformative change explained.
Linkage to context and role clear.
In-depth consideration of likely impacts, costs, benefits, and limitations.
Literature/theory
3 marks
No literature used to support possibilities. Use of literature limited in terms of quantity, quality or appropriateness to the context and the possibilities. A range of appropriate literature (largely as provided by the course) used and some attempt made to identify connections between the literature and the possibilities. A good array of literature specific to the context used to transform what is possible in the context, or how it is understood.
A variety of perspectives from the literature visible and linked.
Links to participation
3 marks
No links to participation as teacher Some links to participation but not always supporting the argument.
Describes what the participation was, rather than use it to support the possibilities.
Explains how the participation relates to the possibilities. Identifies and explores the significant aspects of the participation, linking all together and relating the argument.
Literacy
1 mark
Significant flaws in language, literacy, referencing or use of the NGL environment (linkage, attribution etc). Some flaws in language, literacy, referencing or use of the NGL environment. Very few flaws in language, literacy, referencing or use of the NGL environment. No few flaws in language, literacy, referencing or use of the NGL environment.

Assignment 2

The primary aim of assignment 2 is for you to develop a theory-informed plan for using NGL to transform your teaching (very broadly defined) practice. To do this you will develop a design-based research (DBR) proposal (essay) that draws on the NGL literature to design and plan a proposed intervention. You will not be expected to implement this intervention as part of the course, however, it is hoped that it may prove a foundation for implementation.

The assignment will have two parts

  1. Evidence of peer review – 10%; and,
    As you develop your proposal you will be expected to actively engage with the networks you established in completing Assignment 1 to gather peer review of your proposal and its ideas.
  2. The proposal – 30%.
    A formal academic essay outlining your planned DBR intervention.

Peer review

Throughout Module 2 you will be expected to develop and implement a plan to ensure that your proposal is reviewed by at least two different people (either inside or outside of the course). Their review of your proposal must be carried out in public (in any format that suits), but must be accessible from your blog.

For the assignment you will submit a short blog post (no more than 500 words) – titled Peer review – that:

  • Describes how you went about generating peer review including links to the actual peer review; and
  • Reflects briefly how you responded to that peer review.

Rubric

Criteria Unacceptable
0-49%
Acceptable
50-65%
Good
65-80%
Exemplary
80-100%
Plan – how you planned to and generated review

7 Marks

Limited description of how the review was planned or implemented.

The context, purpose and requirements of the review were not always evident to potential reviewers.

Insufficient time was provided to receive and act upon contributions (or it wasn’t clear what time was available).

Description of the design of the review.

The context, purpose and requirements of the review were evident to reviewers.

Sufficient time provided to receive and act upon contributions.

Effective description and explanation of the design of the review

The context, purpose and requirements of the review were clearly defined

Sufficient time provided for contributions to be made and actioned.

Discerning description and explanation of the design of the review

The context, purpose and requirements of the review were clearly defined and encouraged/scaffoldlded responses

Sufficient time provided for contributions to be made and actioned.

Response – how you used and responded to the review

3 marks

Limited description of how feedback impacted thinking about the project Analysis and explanation of how feedback impacted thinking about the project Effective analysis and explanation of how feedback impacted thinking about the project Discerning analysis and explanation of how feedback impacted thinking about the project.

Proposal

Your DBR proposal will take the form of an essay (2000 – 3000 word essay) that contains the following components (the exact detail of these components may change as the semester progresses):

    1. Statement of the problem and context.
      Providing details of your teaching context and the problem or purpose you are trying to address/achieve with your use of NGL.
    2. A description of the research questions.
      What question(s) are would you like to answer through implementing and evaluating your planned application of NGL. (You are encouraged to keep these limited.)
    3. A literature review.
      Where you draw on your knowledge of NGL and further research to outline what is known about this problem/context and the use of NGL and to develop a set of guidelines that will inform your proposed intervention.
    4. A description of the proposed intervention.
      Drawing on the literature and the proposed intervention describe what is being planned and the expected impacts it might have.
    5. A plan for implementation.
      Describe how this proposed intervention might be implemented with a particular focus on what you still need to learn.

You will write a post on your blog titled “My DBR Proposal” that will contain your essay.

Rubric

Criteria Unacceptable
0-49%
Acceptable
50-65%
Good
65-80%
Exemplary
80-100%
Context & Problem
5 marks
Context for the study is not clear

Problem is either not identified, not linked to the context, or is described poorly.

Description of the context mostly focused on characteristics relevant to the proposal

Description of the problem to be investigated with limited justification of its connection and importance to the context

Effective description of the context including broader implications and focused on characteristics relevant to the proposal

Effective description of the problem to be investigated including justification of its connection and importance to the context .

Discerning description of the context broader implications and focused on characteristics relevant to the proposal.

Discerning description of the problem to be investigated including justification of its connection and importance to the context and beyond

Literature review
10 marks
Description of information from some sources that are not closely related to the context, problem or potential principles/interventions. Organisation and some analysis of information from a range of appropriate sources to develop ideas mostly related to the context, problem and potential principles/interventions. Effective organization and analysis of information from a range of credible,
relevant sources to develop perspectives about the context, problem and potential principles/interventions
Systematic organization and analysis of information from a range of high quality, credible, relevant sources to develop insightful perspectives about the context, problem and potential principles/interventions
Research Question(s)
3 marks
Limited relevance to the context and problem.

Not able to be easily answered using DBR with the available time and resources

Uses terms, concepts and ideas not evident literature review.

Relevant to the context and problem.

Answer(s) likely to be provided through DBR with the available time and resources.

Clearly relevant to the problem and important to the context.

Answer(s) likely to be provided through DBR with the available time and resources.

Terms and concepts used are from the literature review and are relevant to the context and NGL

Clearly relevant to the problem and important to the context and beyond.

Answer(s) likely to be provided through DBR with the available time and resources.

Intervention and principles
10 marks
Design principles not clearly identifiable.

Not likely to address the problem, nor answer the question(s)

Limited alignment between principles and intervention.

Not appropriate to the context

Implementation is likely to be too difficult

Either doesn’t draw upon or inappropriately draws upon NGL principles.

Description of design principles and intervention that is mostly aligned with each other, the research problem, research question(s) and literature.

The design principles and intervention draw upon NGL and other sources and are largely appropriate to and implementable within the context.

Explanation of how the design principles and the intervention are aligned with each other, the research problem, research question(s) and literature.

Effective use NGL and other appropriate sources to inform the design principles and intervention in ways that are appropriate to and implementable within the context.

Comprehensive explanation of how the design principles and the intervention are aligned with the each other, the research problem, research question(s) and literature

Insightful use of NGL and other theoretical sources to inform the design principles and intervention in ways that are appropriate to and implementable within the context.

Writing
2 marks
A disrupted flow with poor transitions between sections – occasional inconsistencies between content and sections

Writing is convoluted. Poor clarity of expression, spelling – limited readability; requires great deal of correction /further explanation

Poor use of referencing system; inconsistent style, incomplete reference list

Clear structure that supports the proposal

Clarity of expression, and correct spelling – reasonably high in all areas

Mostly consistent application of referencing system for in-text citations and bibliography

Coherent structure that supports the proposal with effective transitions tying sections together

Clarity of expression and correct spelling consistently high

Uses consistent referencing system in-text and bibliography in written report with full alignment between in-text citations and reference list

Well-developed coherent structure with effective transitions tying sections together

Outstanding expression; writing is crisp, clear, persuasive and succinct, free of spelling, grammar or punctuation errors

Consistent and accurate use of referencing system with full alignment between in-text citations and reference list.

19 thoughts on “Assessment

  1. David Jones Post author

    G’day Hayat, There is a pretty close final draft pointed to and discussed in the Week 3 material here.

    Have you been following the posts on the course blog? I’ve been using that to update folk on the progress on the criteria and the rest of the material. For example this post from Thursday.

    The OPML file for the course does include the feed from the course blog (i.e. will keep you up to date with the posts). Are you using Feedly at all?

    David.

    David.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  2. Pingback: One conception of how the course is meant to work | An experiment in Networked & Global Learning

  3. Pingback: Explanation of the “draft automated analysis” email | An experiment in Networked & Global Learning

  4. Mari

    Hi David,
    Just want to clarify a few things with regard to the second part of assignment 1 (the 3 blog posts). It says that the blog posts should “approach the style of a formal essay.”
    Does that mean that:
    1. We can still write in the first person?
    2. We can include images and videos in between (as long as we give credit to the source)?
    3. We should create links throughout the essay (as we did in other blog posts) even if we include a list of references at the end of the essay?
    4. We only need to post these 3 blogs with the appropriate titles (that you provided) on our blog sites, and not submit them via USQ EASE as we normally do for assignments?
    Thanks,
    Mari

    Like

    Reply
  5. Pingback: Some assignment 1 questions | An experiment in Networked & Global Learning

  6. Pingback: Assignment due dates and titles for Assignment 1 blog posts | An experiment in Networked & Global Learning

    1. David Jones Post author

      G’day Paul,

      I’m assuming you mean the peer review associated with Assignment 2.

      Have you looked at the Week 9 material yet? In particular, the section titled “Consultation with researchers and practitioners”.

      In a perfect world, it’s something that is happening throughout your development of Assignment 2. It’s not a one off thing. Of course, I imagine that reality may hinder this somewhat, but it’s certainly what you should be aiming for.

      David.

      Like

      Reply
  7. Mari

    Hi David,
    Is there going to be a google doc for viewing and adding comments to the Assignment 2 assessment criteria… as with assignment 1?
    About the blog post of 500 words about the peer review – Does this have to be written in the style of an academic essay, or is this a more informal blog post reflection? Do we need to include sources?

    thanks, Mari

    Like

    Reply
    1. David Jones Post author

      G’day Mari, Thanks for the reminder. I’ve just added another post to the course blog that I hope answers your questions (and lets other folk know as well).

      In terms of sources for the peer review, if you are referencing literature at all, please include it. Including it as a link (if possible) is acceptable given that I’ve said it can be a little less formal than an essay.

      Your DBR proposal should be a formal essay.

      Let me know if I’ve missed anything or been unclear.

      David.

      Like

      Reply
  8. Pingback: Some updates on Assignment 2 submission and criteria | An experiment in Networked & Global Learning

  9. Pingback: Clarification about “consultation” section and DBR proposal | An experiment in Networked & Global Learning

  10. Pingback: Assignment 2 draft criteria and misc updates | An experiment in Networked & Global Learning

  11. Clare

    Hi David, Is the length of the assignment 2 DBR proposal still a 2000 or 3000 word essay? Or has it been confirmed yet whether it is one or the other e.g. 2000 words in total. Just wanted to check I haven’t missed anything. regards,Clare

    Like

    Reply
    1. David Jones Post author

      The 2000/3000 word count is an indication of length. At least 2000 words, not a lot more than 3000. I’m not going to penalise folk for going over, as long as it isn’t by a great deal and it makes sense in terms of the remaining criteria.

      Like

      Reply
  12. Pingback: Week 1 – Me and Networked and Global Learning (NGL) | An experiment in Networked & Global Learning

  13. Pingback: How NGL can inform my role as teacher. | teachfacilitatelearngrow

  14. Pingback: What is “netgl” and how might it apply to my problem | The Weblog of (a) David Jones

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s