Website vs Essay
February 9th, 2005 by gina.revillI’m astounded.
I’ve just marked Denise’s submission for the ‘Reflection in the Workplace Setting’ module. Click on the image above to read it. She has always presented her assignments on her website. This time she chose to attach an accompanying pdf file of the text in the more traditional form of an essay.
She always receives high marks as she is an excellent researcher and highly conscientious individual. However, when I looked at the pdf text version, there is no doubt it appeared to be, almost subconsciously, to have superior content. But the content is the same.
What could this mean?
I am currently being ‘trained’ to express my own research in essay form through my masters, despite being given free reign to find alternative forms of presentation. I went through a school and university system which valued the essay above all else. Since my time at Ultralab, all this has been slowly unravelled and reknitted, but I can’t afford to be complacent. None of us can if we are serious about pushing boundaries and finding other ways of expressing out learning in delightful and fresh ways.
Go Denise! 
Comments
Yes, this was fascenating. Gina asked me to cast a second eye over the work and I had to agree with her. So is, it that we don’t have a valid ‘canon’, that is a body of valid rules or principles by which to judge the work? By contrast, we have many hundreds of years experience of how to evaluate books.
Stephen Powell
February 9th, 2005
I’m astounded too.
What are the implications of this for the minority of students who do take the risk, and what are the implications of admitting that there is a negative perception in the eyes of markers, by publishing here?
Another point I might make is to question the statement that the content is the same. I don’t think it is. Denise’s website may have the same text as the pdf, but it is structured in a chosen way, using short seperate pages linked together in a particular way, using colour and clipart. All of this becaomes a part of the content in a way that can either enhance or detract from the meaning, and the meaning, or rather communication of meaning forms the content. A multimedia presentation isn’t just (meaningful text + superficial decoration) - or is it?
Andy
February 11th, 2005
I thought about all those issues before publishing Andy but decided it was better to say it and discuss it and explore it and attract criticism, than to bury it, which would have been easier but arguably less moral.
I plan to make it an item at the next face to face to explore with LFs.
As for Denise’s work-speaking for myself as a marker, I tend to give marks for organisation of content, and in her case, she gained some for how clear it was and how well things were linked (in my opinion) in the web version. Good point about the content not being the same…..mmm….
Gina
February 11th, 2005
Hi there,
Thanks for your kind words Gina, having a facilitator like you helps a great deal too!
I can???t take all the credit for publishing my work ???essay style???. I received a comment from Alison Gee (another learning facilitator) that she found it difficult to read my work because the text did not flow as in a report. I decided to keep my website, to use multimedia and at the same time produce a pdf document as an alternative for those who preferred it.
When I printed out the essay I had a similar feeling to yours, Gina ??? it looked more like an official report than my website. My thought was something along the lines of ???gosh, is that really my report????
This year I have typed all my reports ???essay style??? first before transferring them onto the website. I find I much prefer this approach.
I think you have been very brave to bring this to our attention, Gina. It is part of the ???learning process??? of the course to understand the challenges and possibilities, advantages and disadvantages of being innovative.
A thought from Andy’s comment, if my work has a different content from being split up on the website, then I am, in effect providing two different pieces of work to mark, that might be a problem?
Denise
Denise Binks
February 11th, 2005
Hi Denise! Good question. My first answer is no. My second answer is, ‘let me discuss that further with others’!
But whatever it is, you will not be penalised in any way, I promise you that.
It’s an important disucssion to have.
I just can’t see a problem with submitting the text of a website-I can’t imagine an external assessor for example saying it was two pieces of work….
Stephen?
Richard?
Tim?
Gina
February 12th, 2005
I would disagree with Andy when he states “negative perception in the eyes of markers, by publishing here?” It is exactly because Gina publishes here and discusses these issues with her colleagues that we can be sure we are not penalising the work of researchers like Denise. This critical self examination is the ‘guarantee’ that researchers have that we are genuine in our determination to do things differently and work towards new understandings of how HE should operate. Well done Denise and well done Gina.
Anonymous
February 12th, 2005
“A thought from Andy’s comment, if my work has a different content from being split up on the website, then I am, in effect providing two different pieces of work to mark, that might be a problem.”
Yes definitely two pieces of work for marking, no way round that. A problem? Well yes it would be if everyone did it for very practical reasons such as LF workload and also some more complex issues around equality of opportunity for researchers. I don’t have an answer to this question only that it is clearly something that needs consideration. In the medium to long run, we might hope that we become adept at judging the websites and the PDF becomes surperfluous.
Anonymous
February 12th, 2005
The anonymous person claims to disagree with me, and then quotes part of my question which began “what are the implications…”
How does he or she disagree with me asking this?
Perhaps it’s the sub-clause “negative perceptions” but this is only repeating what has been stated in the main article. The pdf is regarded more positively by two markers.
So just to make it absolutely clear, what are the implications for researchers who may be contemplating using an alternative format, or who already have, when they read (published here) that it may have a negative effect on the person marking their work? It isn’t a rhetorical question, you can try to answer it but you can’t sensibly agree or disagree with it unless you haven’t bothered to read it properly. Oh, maybe I can guess who it is now.
Andy
February 13th, 2005
Hi Gina, I read the site first and then the pdf, its good stuff. I don’t see a problem with providing alternative versions, though I would have liked to see the explanation, which Denise gives above, on the site. Denise has implemented her understanding of learning styles by providing two versions, understanding that some would prefer to read a report.
In the past, I have tried to avoid being over-influenced by great use of a web site by producing my own text version of a researcher’s site. I marked the original site first then used my text-only version to check if I had missed anything. I did this in order to apply (most of) the assessment criteria without distraction. Interestingly, there was no difference in the marking - two explanations of this might be my own learning style and the strength of criterion referenced assessment. Enough for now!
Shirley
February 13th, 2005
Thanks Gina for starting this conversation and being so honest.
A couple of thoughts:
Firstly, I don’t view the PDF as ’superior’ - I try to be as objective as possible when marking and in whatever media, look at how the work relates to the assessment criteria - an attempt to be ‘media neutral’ regarding the fundamental content I guess.
I would have marked both equal for the ‘content’ - I take Andy’s point that it might be difficult to separate media from content although in this specific case the media has the effect IMO of organising the text (and for me it was a better reading experience). I think Andy’s comments would become very appropriate if a non text media was used - e.g. video.
Secondly - is it two pieces of work? I think fundamentally yes. Ultraversity seeks to offer researchers the opportunity to present work in a media that suits their learning/presentation style. If researchers find it necessary to present in two media because of LF preferences…well I think we have problem…let me explain, but this posting is a bit long, so I’ll make a second post…
Tim
February 13th, 2005
…..Ok back again
So why do we have a problem?
A researcher chooses a particular media to present their work - our responsibility should be IMO to mark as seen and in the chosen media - applying the assessment criteria so… does the work meet the learning objectives? and then apply the assessment criteria.
If for instance I consider that the choice of media has been innapropriate for the task - e.g. it has in itself not enabled the researcher to meet a learning objective or access a level of an assessment criteria, then I would feed that back to the researcher. Although I have rarley found that the media has been at fault, more likely that a researcher hasn’t used the media to best effect.
So after a bit of a ramble, I gonna have to put my neck on the line aren’t I…
I don’t think we (LFs) should ask researchers to submit in alternative media to suit our preferences (and I don’t think this was the case here?)
Researchers need to be confident that their work will be marked on the published criteria and the media should not influence that. Otherwise researchers will simply choose the safest route - the essay. This is exaclty the opposite of what we hope to achieve.
Just as learners have preferred media, LF’s are likely to have a preferred ‘reading’ (couldn’t think of a beter word .. ‘processing’?) style. The latter IMO should not disadvantage the former - an important part of ensuring that is for us to do exactly what Gina has done - examine our preferences honestly and attempt as best we can to disregard any bias.
In my experience the marking and moderation process filters out any bias well .
Tim
February 13th, 2005
Thanks for getting involved all - Tim says, ‘I don’t think we (LFs) should ask researchers to submit in alternative media to suit our preferences (and I don’t think this was the case here?)’ . It wasn’t the case here - Denise just happened to do it this way this time. I’ve always been impressed by her websites and haven’t sought any other form. I agree we shouldn’t ask any researcher to submit in a way which suits us - it should suit them.
I also agree with Tim’s assertion that, ‘In my experience the marking and moderation process filters out any bias well’. I think we are getting sharper at this all the time too. And we are particuarly strong as a team in the way we share so much of our marking - more than is required formally, and much more informally.
But I still think there’s no room for complacency!
Gina
February 14th, 2005
So Andy asks: ‘What are the implications of this for the minority of students who do take the risk, and what are the implications of admitting that there is a negative perception in the eyes of markers, by publishing here?’.
The minority who do experiment, seem to be quite confident - I hope they can see that by talking about it we are also helping to prevent bias. I hope they will join in the debate.
The implications of me admitting I have a bias- I don’t know. I would hope it serves to encourage more openness and discussion.
Here’s hoping whatever the implications are that they are good
I’ve certainly changed even through making the post, let alone the discussions that have followed…
Gina
February 14th, 2005
Your approach is interesting Shirley and very thorough. I don’t do that as I want to see the piece as the researcher intended it. I wonder if you see things more clearly through doing it? I’m not sure I’d adopt it though. Because of time mainly, and also I want to see how the researcher out their work together. Food for thought….
Gina
February 14th, 2005
clipart
clipart
April 4th, 2005
Leave a Reply