Evaluating online activity

We have the Evaluation Week in PLENK2010 and this challenging topic interests me greatly. I scanned the web pages recommended to us. My first astonishment was that a famous guy who’s name I do not remember (never heard) and do not want to write here: he made a survey and asked people (American people) about influence and popularity: same or not? Oh god, I cannot say anything, I am wordless.There is so much stupidity in world and internet is effective in spreading it.

There was one description about web participation, the Google.doc is here. It is worth trying and assessing. It will be my first step this week. I checked my earlier blog posts from CCK studies. I had planned assessment criteria for myself in October 2008. I had assessed myself in December using images in my final project. I am not shamed about those writings, they seem nice in my eyes still 🙂

Clarence Fisher has given content to expertise levels (beginner, capable, accomplished and expert) using areas:

  • commenting
  • developing global understanding
  • connecting and networking.

He aims to help his students think about these issues. He has written earlier about blogging and writing must be there. Now I will reflect myself and my doings with this rubric scale.

Commenting

  1. Beginner until 1996, then I wrote my first public comment and made my first mistake and insulted a friend on mine
  2. Capable 2000- online teacher, rarely comments
  3. Accomplished 2005- regularly comments on own and others work, quick feedback
  4. Expert 2007- often comments on the work of others, build a community around my space. Comments ask questions and drive forward thinking.

Here I assessed my work in Finland, as a teacher, colleague  and community member but: when starting CCK08 I could not participate an in expert-like-manner. I was a beginner in using English and only capable (level 2). So this depends on the context.

Connecting and Networking

I combined this scale in commenting, I see now. Rude behavior belongs to the beginner level, of course. But RSS feeds were not possible in 1996, I began as late as 2008 and 2009 it began to work for my purposes. Now I see that Fisher scale is planned for students as he told, it warns about giving personal information online.

I have to stop reporting my own history and only check this day’s situation. Capable level: usually uses proper netiquette and connects with others safely, network changes only with support – I can perceive discussions about these themes in our Moodle every day (just wrote about the openness of comments).

  • level 4. I work on the  Accomplished level: use proper netiquette (or do I with this English?) , connect safely (thx to Akismet), regularly review self-chosen RSS feeds. And last: My network sometimes changes, grows and shrinks slowly.

How about the highest level expertise?

  • level 5. Supportive of others online: yes since 2000 I suppose. RSS-feeds I do delete and add as needed, but I do not know why subscriptions are better than self chosen RSS? And the last: my network is flexible, changing to meet needs. Oh yes, it is and is not, it depends…

Developing a global understanding

The year 1968 opened the global world to me, or some years later. Never been a beginner who accesses information only from North America 🙂 This is nice to read in Finland: American people must learn that there are other continents. Now I recognize how good I am at global thinking. I have regularly created own content about global issues since 1970’ies. This part was for Americans only.

I thought that he had said something about THINKING but no, it is lacking almost totally. Waited too much.

But it was nice to fill this rubric of Clarence Fisher. I tried to grasp this issue at the end of CritLit and after it: I was searching the content of expertise in these open CCK courses – and try it again during this week.

5 thoughts on “Evaluating online activity

  1. Heli, I wanted to say I value your input and read you with interest in the PLENK discussion forums, although other people are often better at saying what I’m thinking. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who thought that confusing popularity with influence was a bit bizzare. I have some doubts about equating influence with value as well, but perhaps that’s sour grapes because I’m not one with a lot of “clout”. I’d love to hear your thoughts on http://klout.com/kscore. I believe there was a comment referencing it under the article you mentioned.

    Keep up the great posts and don’t be so hard on yourself about your English. You are communicating clearly, and we’d be deprived indeed if our only access to you was in Suomalaisia.

  2. Hi Jim,
    you made me happy with your warm comment. Nice to wake up today. I remember you as a man from the north on our Google map. I was looking for your blog when listing my favorites, I have to check again.. I have a hunch that you have a blog now and I have been reading it.

    Don’ t know klout, I have to explore it. Thanks for the link.
    Yes I became conscious about the American style in reading the influence guy – we live under that “dollar influence” here in blogoshere and I pay dollars about this blog, too. Good to remember!

  3. Hi Heli – it’s good to see this post. I also looked at Clarence Fisher’s work. To be honest I was a bit dismayed at how readily it was accepted without any critical evaluation. I have tried the same type of assessment of students, i.e. using these criteria grids to assess online participation and I find that they just don’t work. I have not been able to find any criteria that do the job – for example – how do you match ‘shows little understanding’, ‘shows some understanding’, ‘shows clear understanding’ to learners’ online posts? How can you make judgements/assessments that are fair?

    I have found that the difficulty with assessment criteria like this lies in the words used and whether or not they can be accurately interpreted by a range of users.

    I think he did suggest that learners write their own criteria. I have done this and think it is the only way to ensure a reasonably fair system – i.e. that the criteria for assessment are negotiated with the learners and that they have ownership over them.

  4. Hi Heli,
    Wonderful to learn about your expertise, with reference to Clarence Fisher’s work. I think you have mastered the expert level, and contributed actively in the forum. Development of global understanding is really stretching the limits – that sounds exciting. I am enjoying your blog posts, and so I greatly appreciate your great sharing.
    I am still recovering just a bit, due to a recent “struck down”, so still haven’t been able to contribute more both in blogs and forums.
    @Jenny, I think I share your views on the assessment grid here. What does understanding mean? Every assessment is pretty “subjective” if the criteria lies with the words used only. Using the learners own criteria sounds great. I think it may go back to “individual learning plan and assessment” with clear goals and strategic plans, action, assessment and evaluation as a way to go. But how does it work in MOOC?
    John

  5. Hi Jenny and John,
    I found you both after CCK08 when you continued with actitivities, (Salmon says e’tivities) : Ning and research. So I can say that my network develops slowly. But why change after finding the pearls?

    I had so excellent situation at my work (teacher education) that we got rid of all numerical assessments in 1990’ies and could develop real self-assessment and peer-assessment. Learners write their own criteria was the main principle and it is very challenging. I have tried it here and it is not easy at all.
    Thanks for support and feedback

Comments are closed.