I went to finish grading one of my classes assignments and lo and behold half of the grading I had done had gotten wiped out in a file corruption problem. (I had been using a word processor called Scrivener which I think I’ll write about more in the future)  Now the file corruption wasn’t a ITP issue but it reminded me of an issue I have dealing with online submissions and how to grade and provide feedback for my students(who are oftenequally confused as to how they will be getting their grades if not back on a piece of paper.  Having students submit work as blog posts or on wikis makes it harder to do the traditional editorial marks that make grading a paper easier.  This means I often have to go to longer lengths to provide an explanation of the location of a grammatical or stylistic problem then provide a lot of the detail that the editorial mark could have provide.  Not to mention that sending them an email with feedback and a grade means they have to bounce back and forth between two different types of e-objects and hopefully something doesn’t get lost.  Things like notation in Word and using discussion pages are options, but they are unelegant with questions of layout and public availability arising.  Right now I am going with this model

1. First of all make sure to do a careful reading, this has nothing to do with IT but relates to good pedagogy in general so worth including

2. Once I have found those things I want to comment on I do one of two things.  I either copy the text I am commenting on and paste into the document where I am recording grade (usually an email or word processing document) or I take note of the paragraph and/or page and where in that section the area I want to comment on is and write that down in the email or document.

3. Next I provide as detailed as possible/or necessary an explanation of why I selected the particular section and what was notable or incorrect.

4. I then provide an equally detailed explanation of what the student could have done differently either grammatically, stylistically or with the content they have chosen to write about.

5. Finally I gather my general perception of the piece and provide them with the number or letter grade I believe they deserve.

This might seem all a little banal but the whole idea of grading IT projects becomes more complex and I will continue to deal with it because in some environments (such as complete online courses) there is so much that is recorded and you have to decide how you should be grading different materials and how you want to grade high stakes and low stakes writing differently.  No matter what though, I think that in the end the benefit of these new methods of handing in materials definitely outweigh the challenges of provding good grading for the students to reflect on.

This is not my first blog and it probably won’t be my last.  Despite having taught with and about blogs, wikis and other Web 2.0-ish tools, I can’t find my way to post regularly on a blog. Maybe it has to do with insecurity about what I write, fear of logorrhea, not quite enough vanity, or the fear that no one will ever read it, but for whatever reason it’s been a no go to this point.

Now thought the time seems ripe to try again.  With the Academic Commons blooming, the tools readily at my disposal, and a developed background of experience teaching with and about interactive technology in educational (ITP, short for Interactive Technology and Pedagogy from here on out) settings it seemed like I should try to share my experiences and see if anyone cares.  So, this blog will be going here and there in pursuit of some kind of . . . well something to be determined.  What I intend to do is muse on how the way I plan my classes is influenced by technology and how the implementation of that technology fails or succeeds on a general basis and with specific examples.  Since I have three classes going full bore right now that are all using blogs/wikis/etc. there should be some good stuff.

I hope that you join me in my (mis)adventures and that you can provide me with feedback about what makes sense, what doesn’t, what you would borrow, and what you wouldn’t do and why.  See you in the ether.