Web 2.

0 technology
case study1
Case study title Assessment 2.0: Wikipedia writing projects

Author’s name Alan J. Cann

School / Department of Biology

Department
Institution University of Leicester

Background The School of Biological Sciences at the University of Leicester

comprises four academic departments: Biochemistry, Biology, Cell
Physiology and Pharmacology, and Genetics, with some 85 academic
staff in total. In operational terms for undergraduate teaching, these
four departments act in a federal manner with a Board of Studies
forming the heart of the structure. The annual quota undergraduate
intake into the School is 165 students, divided between the 10
programmes.
Each of the undergraduate programmes has specific sets of Aims and
Learning Outcomes (as detailed in Module Handbooks and
Programme Specifications) but the School also has generic aims for
its degree programmes:
• Flexible programmes of high quality, informed by an active
research environment in which students develop their own
interests;
• A stimulating and supportive working environment;
• An education that will enable graduates to follow a variety of
careers, including higher degrees and research.
and to enable students to:
• Have a broad appreciation of Biological Sciences and
advanced knowledge of one or more areas, including
appreciation of aspects of the underpinning research;
• Develop subject-specific knowledge with practical and
transferable skills.
All the degree programmes follow a similar pattern. Initially there is
a common core to the programme, for the Biological Sciences
streams this represents the whole of the first year and covers the
breadth of the subject in 9 x 10 credit modules, from molecular
biology to populations dynamics. The year also includes modules in
Study and Communication Skills, IT and Numeracy Skills for
Biologists and Chemistry for Biologists. For the ‘Medical’ streams the
core only lasts for the first semester and then the students start to
move towards their specialist routes. For these degrees the students
take some of the modules from the Biological Sciences stream and
some specific modules closely related to those in the MBChB
programme and there are also skills courses, similar to those taken
by the Biological Sciences students.
In the 2nd year, the Biological Sciences students can choose from a
wide range of modules, with only one module, Research Skills, being
core. The modules chosen allow the students to start specializing in
one of the areas of Biological Sciences. In their final year that
specialization is normally continued, resulting in the award of one of
the named degrees (though students may opt to retain a broad

1
This template is based on Centre for Bioscience templates and the JISC Effective Practice with e-learning project
(http://www.elearning.ac.uk/news_folder/innoprac).
 dimension to their programme). The modules chosen in the final
year normally have 2nd year pre-requisites, thereby ensuring a clear
path of progression. The "Medical" degree students likewise follow
their specialist routes in the 2nd and 3rd years but have significantly
less flexibility, in keeping with the more specialist nature of their
programmes. All final year students also undertake an independent
research project, which is worth 40 credits.
The University provides extensive on-campus and off-campus
computing facilities available to all students, with an ever increasing
number of computers available across the campus and in the halls of
residence. Wireless access facilities are currently being rolled out
across the campus. Off-campus computing services available to all
staff and students from any location with internet access include
access to email, data storage and information services such as
Library facilities and online journals and access to the Blackboard
virtual learning environment (VLE).
The School has been very pro-active in developing its teaching via a
number of routes. This has been highlighted through a number of
internal and external indicators. For example, the School has been
very active in the development of Blackboard VLE uptake across the
entire University. Also involving Blackboard, the School undertook
the first extensive pilot within the University of Leicester of the
TurnitinUK plagiarism detection service and is now using the system
for all work submitted by students.
The challenge In discussions with colleagues at Leicester and from other
institutions, it became clear that many had previously tried to use
various learning technologies to facilitate student attributes such as
reflection (Kolb, D.A. 1984 Experiential learning: Experience as the
source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ), and to assess skills beyond the basic “knowledge” competence
in Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Bloom, B.S. (Ed.)
1956 Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of
educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. Longmans, New
York). As with my own previous experiences, most of these
attempts had been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons. The
predominant cause of failure was perceived to be the unwillingness
of highly goal-directed science students to engage with what was
seen as a frivolous activity not directly related to assessment.
Although students performed well in traditional assessment tasks
such as in course essays, the process of producing the work was
mechanical and repetitive. Students who performed below the norm
admitted that they would put off preparation and writing of essays
until the last possible moment before the submission deadline.
Students also complained about the workload of producing multiple
substantive essays for more than one concurrent module, and of the
pressures induced by concurrent deadlines. Research in the School
of Biological Sciences failed to substantiate the issue of clashing
deadlines, so this complaint appears to be more one of perception
than reality, probably induced by the tendency to leave writing until
the last minute. For academic staff, marking a large pile of lengthy
module essays and the need to return feedback to students promptly
after the submission of in course assessments also induced stress.
Intended The introduction of a new assessment format aimed to:
outcome(s) • Vary a pattern of weekly online assessments and prevent
feelings of repetition and fatigue.
• Motivate and enthuse students by allowing choice of topics
they write about (within the overall context of the module)
and the knowledge that their work would be visible by the
wider academic community.
• Promote engagement and reflection with the subject matter
 and hence to assess skills beyond the basic “knowledge”
competence in Bloom’s taxonomy.
• Harness the knowledge and enthusiasm of the wider
academic community by "crowdsourcing" part of the task of
assessment while still retaining overall quality control through
monitoring and moderation of marks awarded
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing; The Wisdom of
Crowds. James Surowiecki, Anchor, 2005. ISBN:
0385721706).
Established To attempt to alleviate some of the problems associated with
practice assessment and to try to make full use of the communications
facilities offered by a VLE, the course essay in a final year biological
sciences module was abandoned and replaced by a series of weekly
assessments delivered and assessed online. In the first year of the
trial, this consisted of eight weekly overlapping assessed online
discussion groups (Cann, AJ, Calvert, JE, Masse, KL, Moffat, KG.
Assessed Online Discussion Groups In Biology Education. Bioscience
Education E-Journal 8 2006
http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol8/beej-8-4.htm
accessed 21.11.07). Although this was generally successful and well
received by students, one issue which became apparent from both
analysis of access statistics and from student feedback was evidence
of fatigue and loss of interest during the latter half of the eight
weekly online assessments, causing a "low point" in contributions to
the online discussions. This observation suggested that a change in
the online assessment format midway through the module might
inject new enthusiasm.
The plan Prior to the commencement of any online discussions, the entire
class engaged in an "e-tivity", an icebreaker to promote group
cohesion (Salmon, G. 2002 E-tivities: The key to active online
learning. Kogan Page, London). In this module, this took the form of
each student constructing of a homepage on the VLE to introduce
themselves to other module participants. To accommodate the new
form of assessment, the online assessed discussion groups in the
second half of the module were replaced with a weekly online writing
task utilizing Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org). The online
discussion boards remained available to students throughout the
entire module, although contributions were no longer assessed after
the weekly Wikipedia exercises began, but were used to facilitate
and support students during the Wikipedia assessments.
Students were introduced to Wikipedia in an hour long face to face
demonstration and discussion session. They were advised about
registering as a users on the Wikipedia site so that their
contributions could be tracked via their username and the History
tab on the pages they had contributed to. They were advised to use
a pseudonym for registration if they wished to remain anonymous,
an option which the majority elected to take. For the assessment
itself, students were told that they would be required to make a
weekly contribution to Wikipedia, and that a minimal acceptable
contribution for credit was:

A total of at least 200 words on any topic covered on this module

with appropriate references which survives substantially unaltered
(not including minor edits and vandalism) for at least one week after
the original posting date. You must contribute to a different page
(URL) for each of the weekly assessments - you will not receive any
marks if you submit the same page you submitted in a previous
week.

The students were also explicitly warned about the dangers of

 plagiarism on these assessments, and that their online contributions
would be checked not only by the Wikipedia community, but also by
the TurnitinUK plagiarism detection service (http://submit.ac.uk).
By using this upfront approach, in two years of running this
assessment format, no cases of plagiarism have been detected.
After completing their contribution, the students posted the URL of
the page they had edited to the VLE discussion board so that it could
be seen by their peers and tracked and evaluated by the module
convener.
The ‘Web 2.0’ The crowdsourcing element of the assessment worked well in
advantage reducing staff time required for assessment by simply moderating
and monitoring marks for the work submitted. In two years trials,
no difficulties have been experienced with vandalism on the
Wikipedia site or plagiarism by students.
The asynchronous online nature of this learning activity means that it
can be conducted from any location with internet access, a potential
advantage for any student with mobility issues or other difficulties,
enabling them to participate in an online community without a
requirement to be physically present in a group environment at
specified times. Having tested this assessment format on two
student cohorts and not encountered any significant technical
problems, I am confident of the highly accessible nature of this
assessment format in addition to its pedagogical benefits. Online
material and websites have been shown to be motivational to adult
students with learning disabilities and low literacy levels (Johnson,
R., & Hegarty, J.R. 2003 Websites as educational motivators for
adults with learning disability. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 34(4), 479-486). Interactive multimedia e-learning
resources can promote deep learning and understanding (Evans, C.,
Gibbons, N. J., Shah, K., & Griffin, D. K. 2004 Virtual learning in the
biological sciences: Pitfalls of simply "putting notes on the web".
Computers & Education, 43(1-2), 49-61).
Changes This assessment model is still sufficiently novel that it has not yet
been deployed on any other courses at this University. However, two
years of trials beginning in January 2006 have now shown that the
format is robust and reliable, does not suffer from frequent technical
problems and reduces staff time required for assessment without
compromising quality controls.
Staff at other institutions are exploring similar but distinct ways of
employing Wikipedia for assessment and engagement. Postgraduate
students at the University of East Anglia are being assessed on their
contributions to Wikipedia. This project is being led by Dr Nicola
Pratt, a lecturer in comparative politics and international relations at
the School of Political, Social and International Studies. As part of
their preparation for the seminars, each week the students are
required to edit Wikipedia articles on issues related to their class
discussions. They also have to write and submit their own article at
the end of the unit. In this example, the course is assessed 100% on
the Wikipedia editing and writing tasks. Dr Pratt says "We always
stress to students the importance of citing their own reading and
research. When students contribute information to the Wikipedia site
it has to be accurate. This means that they have to read something
that is relevant and they have to reference it. The ethos of Wikipedia
is that information must be properly referenced"
(http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press/release.asp?id=735 Accessed:
21.11.07).
In addition to straightforward article writing and editing, wikis can be
used to support learning in a wide variety of ways (Ferris, S., and H.
Wilder. 2006. Uses and Potentials of Wikis in the Classroom.
Innovate 2 (5).
 http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=258
accessed 21.11.07).

Key points for Make sure you sell the concept to students and colleagues before
effective practice you start! The novelty of this approach induces fear at the
unfamiliarity of this method of assessment which needs to be
overcome by a hearts and minds approach. The ideas of assessing
students on their contributions to Wikipedia and of introducing a
crowdsourcing element into academic assessment are controversial,
doubly so when linked together. Luddite reactions to Wikipedia are
common among academic staff (http://www.hastac.org/node/694
Accessed: 21.11.07), and in this instance, the "Luddite" label is
appropriate considering the violence of the opposition mention of
Wikipedia can produce.

Attention also need to be paid to students' varying acceptance of

technology in teaching and learning (Questioning Assumptions About
Students' Expectations for Technology in College Classrooms. Sarah
Lohnes and Charles Kinzer. 2007 Innovate 3 (5).
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=431
accessed: 21.11.07). This problem can be overcome by a varied
pattern of assessment involving a range of tasks (I am not
advocating that students should be assessed solely on their
contributions to Wikipedia), and by careful advanced planning and
consideration of group dynamics, e.g. the use of introductory e-
tivities, and ongoing support and encouragement for students during
the task via face to face sessions, online discussion boards or email.

Evaluation Over a period of two years, there was no statistically significant

effect on student achievement for the module. However, since this
assessment accounted for only 7.5% of the module marks (forming
part of a varied pattern of assessment tasks), it is highly unlikely
that any significant variation would have been demonstrable.
Certainly there is no evidence that the task had a negative effect on
student achievement.

One of the main reasons this assessment was introduced was to try
to alleviate the drop-off in student participation which had been
observed in a repeated pattern of weekly assessed online discussion
boards over the course of a 10 week module. However, since the
assessed activity took place outside the VLE, there was no method of
directly tracking how long students spent on the tasks other than
their reported (and possibly unreliable) estimates. Contributions to
the VLE discussion boards used to support the online writing tasks
dropped off considerably from the rate seen in the earlier part of the
module. This was expected since the discussion boards were no
longer assessed. However, the submission rate for the weekly
assessments was maintained, and this was an improvement on the
previous pattern of assessment where there was a slight fall-off in
the submission rate towards the end of the module. This is the
strongest evidence that the assessment succeeded in engaging the
students and preventing "end of term fatigue".

Qualitative feedback via a module questionnaire produced strong

feeling about the Wikipedia assessment, but rather mixed results.
Some students appreciated the exercise:

• Form of assessment was good - a welcome change from 2000

word essays or presentations.
• Both the discussion boards and the wikipedia assessments
 were good because it allows us to think along with the
module and express our ideas. Also it allowed us to improve
our research skills such as reading from journals. This was
good especially for people who don't normally do further
reading. These assessments made sure that we all did this.
• I thought the wikipedia assessments were good, as I learned
how to do things I had never done before. But it was hard
particularly the first week when trying how to learn how to
actually post a message and the rules you have to follow on
wikipedia in order to get the correct format.

But there were also strong negative feeling from other students
about this unfamiliar assessment format:

• The wikipedia assessment, although very interesting and

useful, was also very time consuming and often frustrating
when others edited a page you were planning to work on just
before you were going to begin editing. I personally think for
the amount of time and effort put in should be rewarded with
a higher mark, the mark allocation at the moment does not
seem to be sufficient.
• Quite frankly it is a poposterous (sic) idea to encourage
students to use wikipedia as it is not peer reviewed, and
although people can edit incorrect information, how many
people who know about exotic viruses use wikipedia?
• I did not feel the wikipedia assessment was a valid way to
obtain grades. Being put at the whims of non-university staff
for assessed work is not something I am comfortable with.
Furthermore, it forced learning of something I do not feel will
be of great benefit to me in my further scientific career.

One student in particular seemed unable to comprehend that the

marks obtained from the assessment criteria (above) were
moderated by the course convenor to ensure fairness. This student
decided (against specific guidance) that the best "strategy" was to
choose to write on as obscure a topic as possible in the hope that
no-one would read or edit what they had written, but then
complained:

• Wikipedia already had articles on both the most important

and contentious entities in the field of virology. This meant
that I was forced to resort to trying to find 200 words on an
obscure virus without compromising the conciseness which
wikipedia requires.

Overall the questionnaire responses show that students were not

entirely happy with being removed from their comfort zone of
module essays and PowerPoint presentations. A possible solution (if
this is perceived as a problem) might be to run this type of exercise
as a peer-assessment on a free site such as wetpaint
(http://www.wetpaint.com/) or wikispaces
(http://www.wikispaces.com/), although I have not personally
attempted this modified format.
Future This approach to assessment is entirely sustainable since it is cost-
expectations free beyond the requirement for internet access and staff time,
which can presumably be redeployed from previous assessment
formats. My experience has been that after the initial
experimentation, considerable savings in the staff time required for
assessment are achievable over traditional assessment formats such
as essays. In the unlikely even that Wikipedia should become
 unavailable, there are many other free online wiki sites (see above)
on which the same or a similar pattern of assessment could be run.

Both an academic colleague and a student have commented on "the

end of knowledge" problem – the idea that after a few years
students will "run out of things to write about". My response to this
mediaeval suggestion is that they should spend a little more time
examining the volume of research literature published each week
before worrying that we are nearing the point where there is nothing
left to learn.

Conclusions & Although the practice of moving students outside their familiar
recommendations pattern of essays, posters and oral presentations causes some
discomfort at first, the potential benefits in terms of learning
outcomes in the broadest sense are worth the initial resistance. This
is perhaps particularly true of the less able and less articulate
students in a cohort, and clearly for the exercise to be successful,
mechanisms need to be put in place to support and encourage these
individuals. For staff, this is not a "set it and forget it" assessment
format like a traditional essay. The benefit for students is reaped in
terms of skills acquired and for staff in terms of not having to put
aside large blocks of time for tedious and repetitive essay marking.
It is essential that this type of exercise is introduced to students
(and colleagues if necessary) in a sympathetic and carefully
explained way, preferably in an initial face to face session and
supported by a relevant e-tivity if possible.

Plato defined knowledge as justifiable, believed truth. Student

information literacy skills should allow them to assesses the likely
truthfulness of a particular piece of information. To simply advise
students to ignore any readily editable or unrefereed source, such as
those obtained from Google and Wikipedia, is not only doomed to
failure in the web 2.0 era, but also performs a disservice to students.
If you think you can shut your students off from the influence of
Wikipedia you are mistaken. If you think students will acquire the
necessary information literacy skills without guidance, you are likely
to be disappointed.

Additional Dr Alan J. Cann, Department of Biology,

information Adrian Building, University of Leicester,
University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.

alan.cann@le.ac.uk

http://www.microbiologybytes.com/AJC