|Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
2010, 26(5), 607-625.
Secondary students' online use and creation of knowledge: Refocusing priorities for quality assessment and learning
Kay Kimber and Claire Wyatt-Smith
In this increasingly convergent and digital world, young people are reportedly using new media with high engagement outside school, yet disengaged in those schools where technology access is low or restricted. Such an apparent disconnection is magnified when predictions of their futures are tied to requisites including technological expertise, adaptability to change, innovative capacities and complex problem-solving abilities. Such future oriented capacities challenge traditional views that basic literate and numerate proficiency is sufficient for academic success. They also raise questions about the sufficiency of digital engagement for developing higher order critical and creative skills. Collectively, these future oriented capacities heighten educational imperatives for improving the quality of young people's learning outcomes in this rapidly changing online world. This article addresses these issues. It draws on diverse literature sources and an Australian research study (2003-2008) into secondary students' curricular digital literacies (Appendix A) to present conceptual advances in understandings about how to recognise, talk about and value signs of quality learning in student-created multimodal products. Finally, the article offers an assessment framework with potential for assisting students and teachers to access core concepts and mobilise those essential capacities for enhancing performance when using and creating knowledge online.
With the daily escalation of Internet usage, issues of (a) information access, (b) source authentication and (c) global connectedness compound the challenge for educators in meeting 21st century learning needs. Fisch, McLeod and Bronman (2006, 2008), for instance, have estimated the explosion of unique new information items generated across the world, via the Internet, to have already eclipsed that of the previous 5,000 years in just two years. So being able to locate, access and select the most relevant of that information for specific knowledge creation purposes immediately calls into question the user's ability to operate strategically in that digital environment. As revealed in a range of emergent research, writing and reading in the digital age can be more complex and involved than in print (see, for example, Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear & Leu, 2008; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro & Cammack, 2004). Other researchers cite source authentication as the most challenging issue for Internet users, whether adult or child. At the heart of source authentication are notions of credibility (Metzger & Flanagin, 2008) and believability (Lankes, 2008), as "one chilling reality in this brave new digital epoch is the blurring, obfuscation, and even disappearance of truth" (Keen, 2008, p. 16). Hence, for informed, discerning source authentication, constant vigilance and evaluative practices are crucial online knowledge-seeking behaviours. Other research projects involving young people and their technology usage (see Appendix A; Buckingham, 2007; Cheong & Cheung, 2008; Levy & Kimber, 2009; MCEETYA, 2007) have recommended users' more critical engagement with online texts and new media.
Another priority gaining global support for 21st century learning and workforces is creativity in terms of innovation, complex problem solving and design (Economic Review Committee, 2002; McWilliam & Haukka, 2008; Robinson, 2006; Robinson et al., 1999). A creativity perspective foregrounds the highly visualised, screen based practices that characterise online activity, particularly how knowledge is represented, understood and shared. For example, in multimodal texts, the knowledge meaning is constituted in the author's combination of verbal, visual, auditory and/or kinaesthetic modes and the viewer's decoding of the complex mix. While multimodal texts are easily created, published and shared via new technologies, this is no guarantee of high quality, credible content, ethical representation or aesthetic digital design. Even the ease of dissemination raises matters of responsible and ethical behaviours, given the expansive Internet connections. Here, the Internet's networked potential invites educators to generate tasks and activities that promote cross-disciplinary perspectives or investigations, yet also foster awareness of global issues and responsible citizenship (MCEETYA, 2008; Partnerships for 21st Century Skills, 2009). Closely allied to these relational type uses of the Internet are promotions of empathy (Gorry, 2009) and ethical usage (Jenkins, 2006; Kimber & Wyatt-Smith, 2009). From all these perspectives, there would appear to be an urgent need for educators to assist learners to become more digitally proficient, critical evaluators and creative, ethical producers of knowledge products using new technologies. This all rests on the assumption that educators have augmented their print legacy perspectives on learning and assessment with understandings of the dynamic inter-relatedness of words, images, sound and movement in multimodal text production, and the nature of the online world.
In what follows, this article is structured in two parts to address the key question: How do we recognise, talk about and value signs of quality learning in student-created multimodal texts? The first, Towards critical engagement, presents a range of views on the place of engagement, creativity and critical thinking in contemporary online learning environments. The second, Lenses on quality learning in multimodal texts, concerns how signs of quality in student-created multimodal texts can be talked about through two different lenses developed for, and from, a diverse literature field and the longitudinal digital literacies study outlined in Appendix A. These lenses represent conceptual advances in understanding about the demands of working online and culminate in the proposal of an assessment framework that details core concepts and principles with potential for informing 21st century learning.
Researchers investigating young people's screen based literacy practices have noted a dissonance between their "engagement" at home and at school (see, for example, Buckingham, 2008; Ito, et al., 2008; Jenkins, 2006). In Equipping every learner for the 21st century: A white paper (CISCO, 2007), classrooms are labelled as "the only place where learners disconnect" (p. 5), inferring that disconnection is akin to lack of engagement or attentiveness to studies. Yet "engagement" with out of school screen based activities is not sufficient of itself to guarantee strong personal capacities for online meaning-making - whether at home or at school. Even when young people are frequent users of new technologies and teachers have incorporated activities like online discussion forums (Cheong & Cheung, 2008), there has been minimal evidence that much higher order thinking had been exercised. In research with first year university students, Kennedy, Judd, Churchward, Gray and Krause (2008) noted little uniformity in technology experience across the cohort, identifying instead a "digital divide" (p. 117). These researchers posited that widespread, off campus, everyday technology usage did not automatically transfer to more meaningful use of technology for learning. With this no doubt still being the case with secondary students, the challenge for educators extends from capturing and building upon their students' levels of engagement within classrooms, to promoting a raft of robust skills that might withstand technological change and generate creative solutions to complex problems.
For creativity advocates like McWilliam & Haukka (2008), the building of young people's creative capacities should be additional to their basic literacies, as creativity is the value-adding component to an individual's capabilities and the economy more generally. Here, creativity in learning is equated with high level processing of thought, ideas and information into some innovative transformation. Interestingly, "create" has superseded "analyse" as the most complex knowledge and cognitive process in the revised Bloom's Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) and was defined as "putting elements together to form a novel, coherent whole or make an original product", with three associated skills of "generating, planning and producing" (Krathwohl, 2002, p. 215). These views support the value of creativity in classroom lesson design and expectations of student performance. They also indicate the potential for students to enhance their understanding of how the creation of multimodal texts, whether their own or others, can be considered from a critical perspective. If so, it would be feasible to assume that mere engagement with online activities could be productively extended towards more critical engagement and creativity.
Two further steps towards critical engagement involve students having two additional sets of knowledge, beyond their subject disciplines. The first is "curriculum literacies" (Cumming & Wyatt-Smith, 2001; Wyatt-Smith & Cumming, 2003), defined as those literate capabilities needed to learn in the curriculum, like how to access and use meaning systems in using and producing knowledge. These researchers found that to achieve academic success, students needed to understand not just curriculum requirements, but also the literacy demands of their subject areas. The second is "criterial knowledge" (Wyatt-Smith, 2001) or the explicitly articulated elements that constitute quality in a piece of work. According to Sadler (1989), when learners can identify the specific dimensions of criteria and engage with evidence (or lack thereof) in their own and others' work, criteria can play a role in self monitoring and improvement. With regular practice and constructive feedback, the learner is supported in developing expertise over time, an important aspect of the assessment for learning literature (Assessment Reform Group, 2002; Black & Wiliam, 1989; Gibbs & Simpson, 2004; Wyatt-Smith & Cumming, 2003), although no specific mention is made of how learners might think about and use new technologies, or improve the quality of their digital work. Criterial knowledge, when specifically linked to current (and future) uses of technologies, offers potential for enriching the quality of young people's learning.
In summary, the intent in this article is to rethink how quality in 21st century learning can be talked about, with particular focus on the multimodal products that young people create for school purposes. Core to this discussion is the premise that students' creative and critical capacities for the online use, creation and sharing of knowledge can be nurtured and extended. Given the heightened awareness of the complexity of online worlds, believability issues, the creativity priorities and need for critical engagement, then attending to how classroom teachers can nurture and extend these related online learning capacities in their students is warranted, especially their capacity for critical thinking about their actions and choices, whether in reading or online posting. These are explored in the following section.
Discussion in this section is confined to the way that notions of quality in the multimodal texts were identified and talked about, where "quality" referred to the level of learning and aesthetic design evident in the student digital creation. The evaluative criteria and standards for assessing quality in these student creations were developed and adapted through collaborative discussions with a teacher advisory group. Further details about the study are available in Appendix A and on the study website (see http://www.griffith.edu.au/education/creating-knowledge).
Cohesion was defined as "unifying the structure, representation, organisation of ideas, links" (Wyatt-Smith & Kimber, 2005, p. 28), acknowledging the potential of interactive links to give structure, explanation, and contrasting points of view. From this perspective, the integration and mobilisation of colours, images, language choices and movement via the affordances of the software all contributed to the effectiveness of the student's multimodal design in engaging the audience and representing knowledge. Content concerned the quality of the selection and organisation of the research information - the effectiveness of the students' ability to locate, use and create new knowledge online that went beyond cutting and pasting. Consideration was given to the thoughtfulness of resource usage, as well as the framing and structuring of information. The standards devised for Design, or "creating an aesthetic, artful design" (Wyatt-Smith & Kimber, 2005, p. 28), unpacked characteristics of quality at different levels, and focused in particular on how the linguistic, visual and technological choices were managed to create the multimodal text. Table 1 presents a summary of these descriptors for each criterion.
It is worth emphasising two main points, however. First, throughout the process of formulating, trialling and finally applying the assessment criteria and standards, they were taken to be provisional (that is, not fixed). This stance recognised that students might present "surprises" in their creations which could well call forth additional, previously unspecified criteria. For this reason, the rubric of criteria and standards had a space for what was referred to as the "X factor", recognising that assessors could take account of and reward innovation in the features of the actual work that went beyond or differed from the pre-set criteria.
Second, in the process of applying the criteria to a sample of student products, a necessary and new concept emerged, transmodal operation (Wyatt-Smith & Kimber, 2005, p. 31). This term was intended to capture the dynamic involved in crossing among the visual, verbal and kinaesthetic modes of representation, as well as different software applications, as the students negotiated and constructed their digital representation of knowledge. Essentially, the concept served to describe how the nine performance features presented in Table 1 intermingled holistically.
|Criteria for evaluating student-created multimodal texts|
|Cohesion - Overall cohesion
In determining the quality of each multimodal text, based on the above criteria, the researchers developed descriptors on a four-point scale: Outstanding performance; Accomplished; Developing; and Limited. To account for the number of incomplete task submissions, a fifth point was added: Lack of evidence of performance. Proficiency level was determined as midpoint in the scale (2.5) or the boundary between Developing and Accomplished. The Evaluative Criteria and Standards for Online Multimodal Texts can be viewed on the study website. Evaluator training sessions provided opportunities for the six researchers to judge the quality of exemplars using the above criteria and to calibrate judgments to achieve inter-rater consistency. All student-created multimodal texts (620 in 2004; 221 in 2006) were evaluated independently after the training. Validation checking exercises were undertaken throughout the evaluation phase to identify anomalies in judgment. Where anomalies occurred, individual student samples were re-evaluated to finalise grading.
Evaluations revealed some interesting patterns. First, Outstanding performances were minimal. Nearly 38 per cent of the cohort attained the proficiency level in 2004, and 25 per cent in 2006. The majority of the cohort scored below the proficiency level (62 per cent in 2004; 75 per cent in 2006). Second, Accomplished performers scored either higher Content than Design, or similarly high in both. Developing or Limited performances scored higher Design than Content. These findings suggested that effective transmodal operation (i) tended to be associated with Accomplished performances rather than with Developing or Limited performances, and (ii) was reflected in a seeming balance between Design and Content. Overall, these results tended to indicate that across the two year period, even though new technologies had become more ubiquitous, this cohort of young people had not demonstrated high levels of critical reflection, creative design or transmodal facility with this school-like curricular, multimodal knowledge creation.
These findings resonated with a 2005 Australian national study to determine the levels of technological proficiency of Years 6 and 10 students (MCEETYA, 2007) in relation to a six-level literacy scale and proficiency standards developed in consultation with teachers and IT experts in all states. Proficiency was determined as the boundary between levels 3 and 4 for Years 10, and between levels 2 and 3 for Year 6 students. It was found that 61 per cent of the Year 10 sample and 49 per cent of the Year 6 (i) attained their proficiency level and (ii) were using technology in limited ways. In other research, Buckingham (2007) noted that banality and superficiality rather than "spectacular forms of innovation or creativity" (p. 92) characterised much of young British and American people's everyday technological usage. In research with Singaporean thirteen and fourteen year old students using an online discussion forum, Cheong and Cheung (2008) found that only 57 per cent of the cohort contributed comments that indicated higher level information processing or their defence of a position. While not extensive, these findings seemingly challenge notions of young people as techno-savvy or discriminating users of new technologies, where high level thought and academic integrity are expected. They point towards the need for more systematic approaches to pedagogy and assessment to increase critical and creative usage. They also point to classroom use of software packages predominantly like PowerPoint, Inspiration or Photostory, rather than re-purposing content for an online audience using more recently developed Web 2.0 tools. Such limitations could perhaps be traced back to the demands on school budgets, although the advent of cloud computing opens opportunities for schools to expand creative possibilities without taxing their own infrastructure. Curriculum and task design, however, still require close attention if more complex thought processes are to be cultivated.
When the important notions of creativity and critical engagement as discussed in the previous section are considered in relation to the above findings, several key factors gain salience. First, any consideration of how young people connect, communicate, collaborate and create in actual and virtual locations must address the quality and manner of their activity. This is reflected in the individual's capabilities in that environment, in school and at home. Classroom teachers are well placed to be the arbiters of quality, negotiators of learning spaces, orchestrators of local and global connectedness, and supporters of young people in their acquisition of those desired capacities to the point of autonomous use out of school. This could well involve shared negotiation and explicit articulation of task, criteria and standards between teacher and students (Kimber & Wyatt-Smith, 2009).
Second, teaching for creativity warrants a higher priority in classrooms: "If we cannot 'transmit' creativity, we can certainly teach for creativity" (McWilliam & Haukka, 2008, p. 654, emphasis in original). Adlington and Hansford (2008) argued that despite young people's seeming proficiency with digital technologies, certain aspects of multimodal designs, especially of more subtle design elements, warrant careful scrutiny, explicit teaching and further research. Teaching for creativity means that whatever the subject area, teachers are challenged to design innovative approaches to curriculum delivery and find ways to foster those skills in individuals and collaborative teams. With creative problem solving encouraged amongst students, and the opportunity to find team solutions, young people are not just engaged in the activity but also stimulated to find innovative solutions. This will require young people to operate with insight, at any time. Hence critical thinking and informed action need to shape their online decisions as much as ethical and empathetic decision-making and inter-cultural consideration. This suggests an urgent need to shift the goal for learners to become more digitally proficient, critical evaluators, creative producers and ethical, empathetic users of new technologies.
From this platform, the second lens for talking about quality will be considered in the next section. This lens specifically targets those elements identified for more effective online use, creation and sharing of knowledge that will elevate the quality of students' thinking, evaluative practice and ethical actions.
All of these points reveal the print-influenced perspectives of the researchers and teacher advisory group. Clearly, with teaching priorities aligned more closely to digital curricular literacies and assessment for learning practices that prioritise learner capacities as outlined, student performance could be significantly enhanced. Hence, a second lens for considering and talking about quality in student-created multimodal texts was developed by the researchers. This lens was a significant outcome of study, as we reflected on the nature of demonstrated quality in how students worked online. In conceptualising the indicators of quality, we were challenged to address the interconnectivity of task design, student learning activity and associated assessment. Our interest was in progressing discussion about expectations of quality in how students work online, and more specifically, how they generate new knowledge. This required that we articulate provisional indicators of quality and confront the demands of online environments where effective transmodal operation has become essential. This issue of what counts as quality is pressing on educators, given the changing possibilities afforded by Web 2.0 technologies.
This second lens takes as its starting point the premise that creative thinking, design and critical engagement are (a) essential for this century, (b) complex challenges, and (c) teachable. These rest on acknowledgment of the complexities involved in reading the Internet, locating and retrieving information (Leu, et al., 2004), and that ideally, sites should be mined to address issues of credibility, reliability and even ideology. From this basis, this section builds on the concepts of transmodal operation and e-proficiency, but reframes the e-proficiency, content and design criteria with the new concepts of e-credibility and e-designing as online practices that could be improved through explicit intervention. Further, in working towards building young people's more critical engagement with, and greater discrimination in, their learning and online actions, the concept of metalearning, or metacognitive reflection on actions/decisions as they occur, is proposed as the pinnacle towards which students and teachers can aim (Kimber & Wyatt-Smith, 2009). In this reframing, the learner would exercise evaluative practices in making informed decisions along the way and operate with transmodal facility or the fine-tuned ability to work with and across source texts, technology platforms and modes of representations to create new digital texts, and where critical thinking about content and concepts would be balanced with the aesthetics of design (Wyatt-Smith & Kimber, 2010). A fuller discussion of many of these ideas is available in Kimber and Wyatt-Smith (2009), but a summary follows.
Firstly, it must be recognised that using, creating and sharing online requires technology, the Internet and particular software, and their separate needs require specific skills and strategies, many of which are far removed from print based ways of reading and communication. The blurring of boundaries between them is as much a defining characteristic as the speed with which the actions can occur and connections made. For the purposes of this explanation, they are separated into two strands: (i) using existing knowledge, texts or materials; and (ii) creating and sharing new knowledge, texts and materials. Secondly, learner agency will be instrumental as the learner needs to operate with transmodal facility across various platforms, modes and activities, and exercise evaluative practices metacognitively, if a quality outcome is to be achieved.
Through this second lens, the concept of e-proficiency is taken to extend beyond basic technological competencies to more critical and applied usage. For example, being net-savvy might begin with the ability to search for and locate relevant information on the Internet, but being e-proficient will ensure that the user knows and can select from a variety of search engines and data bases to suit different purposes and contexts, rather than automatic selection of one favoured search engine. As well, the e-proficient user will have more advanced working knowledge of a range of software protocols and fine functions. From this perspective, an accomplished user has a heightened knowingness about a wider choice of options from which to create a quality digital knowledge product and in understanding how others' digital texts have been created. All these skills enable production as distinct from consumption of digital products and are foundational to any creative design possibilities using digital media. In these ways, e-proficiency can extend the learner's digital capabilities towards more purposeful, critical and ethical use and production of knowledge in online environments. With e-proficiency as a digital learning goal, teachers can assist their students to improve the quality of their knowledge use and production by digital means.
The concept of e-credibility assumes critical importance through the invisibility of the Internet and the need for constant credibility and trustworthiness checks. This involves being able to accept or reject indicators of reputed expertise at times and places where informed corroboration may be difficult to ascertain. For example, many young people seek instant corroboration from their networked friends (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008), rather than informed "experts". With so much erroneous and misleading information a keystroke away, young people need to be able to apply discriminating evaluations for themselves, so educators need to play a vital role in this area with explicit instruction and scaffolding (Cheong & Cheung, 2008). With careful evaluation to inform their courses of action, young people will be able to make their own, independent, more discriminating selection of sources, with corroborating evidence and accommodation of different viewpoints.
E-credibility is also significant when young people's growing propensity for digital text creations is considered (Lenhart, et al., 2007). With speedy communication to wide audiences, issues of plagiarism and intellectual copyright are raised, as well as just how to copy, paste, remix or morph others' work into their own creations. Keen (2008) noted the impact of remixing on authorship and creativity: the "culture of the ubiquitous remix is not only destroying the sanctity of authorship but also undermining our traditional safeguards of individual creativity" (p. 25). In these ways, ethical use and appropriate acknowledgment will inform transmodal facility and the level of e-credibility of the user. Those who create with e-credibility at the forefront of their consciousness could well be "architects of credibility" (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008, p. 18) whose quality of academic performance and social interactions are significantly enhanced.
E-designing is the visible process and instantiation of creativity. It initially requires active engagement with source material, and "unlearning" (Becker, 2006) is a useful way to allow the imagination free rein to explore solutions, innovations, transformations or original creations. Synthesis of other ideas and accommodation of different viewpoints are required, as well as the technological e-proficiency to exploit the fine functions of software or technology tools. Several researchers have found that academic progress and improved student performances can result from students as designers of multimodal texts (Facer & Williamson, 2004; Kimber, Pillay & Richards, 2007; Walsh, 2007). Further, The New London Group's (2000) notions of 'Designing and the Redesigned' endorsed the proactive reshaping of available designs in imaginative ways, attracting widespread support in many education systems and classrooms. While the evaluative practices at the core of e-proficiency and e-credibility also permeate e-designing, here, desirably, their critical and ethical dimensions are balanced by creativity and a sense of the aesthetic. Consistent efforts to embed e-designing as both process and goal for digital learners could help young people to develop rigorous thinking, sensitivity to aesthetic spatial arrangements, and a desire for achieving elegance of design. Success in these areas could help cement e-designing as a value-adding incentive for digital learners. The accomplished e-designer can apply, transform and represent critiqued knowledge from various sources into their own digital, multimodal creation - but ideally, with a strong measure of ethical responsibility and personal pride to ensure that plagiarism does not misrepresent themselves or others' work.
Table 2 presents the assessment framework for (a) using and (b) creating and sharing knowledge online developed by the researchers. The two columns allow focus on their distinctions in terms of each of the learning priorities - e-proficiency, e-credibility and e-designing. While each is presented in its own row, the arrangement is not hierarchical and is considered as a dynamic, mutually informing and overlapping set of learning priorities. Hence, the dotted lines denote both the boundlessness and the opportunity for the coalescence of the several components. The first row foregrounds Transmodal facility as the synthesising, connecting element that marks the successful integration of all other elements. It must also be mentioned that the use of "ability" refers not to an innate intelligence but rather a capacity that can be taught, nurtured and developed over time. Based on the many aspects raised in the preceding discussion, "ability" is predicated on the need for critical thinking and evaluative decisions at several points in the learning and creating process.
When this second lens is considered, opportunities are presented in that both an evaluative and a creative stance are taken up, both in the use of knowledge and in the production of new material. Those close moments for transition between location, selection, copying and transforming material require evaluative consideration on a constant basis, and especially in the creation of new texts, in line with the discussion on ethical decision making given earlier. All this mirrors the connectivity of networks, the speed of accessing and transforming digital texts, and the complex interplay between both activities as characterised by screen based activity where users can be, simultaneously, users, consumers and producers of digital texts.
An area for further development and closer consideration lies in the notion of sharing knowledge, particularly the collaborative way in which young people work online. For example, in the digital literacies research study, students were frequently observed initiating digital interactions, in the same classroom, even when oral communication was possible. In addition, when the nature of community knowledges is considered in the context of online, informal learning, wider opportunities for collaboration and sharing of feedback, with community experts as well as peers, are possible.
As well, through this second lens and the way that the framework has been presented, the profiling of e-credibility requires a critical stance to be taken up and e-designing and e-proficiency encourage reflection on quality in a much more focused way than in the earlier version. These are understood to be dynamic elements for a holistic view of what counts as quality with the transmodal being the synthesising feature in terms of working within and across modes of representation. So the act of creation is now anchored back to the informed use of texts and platforms and modes which can then be understood relative to the working of these other three. In short, it is looking in new ways for quality whereby there is potential for the cognitive, creative and the aesthetic to come into view and be focal considerations in how teachers and students think about qualities in learning and qualities in performance. Such elements are essential if learners are to develop their capacities for self monitoring and improvement. Thus the framework offers portability for the capacities that it recognises as essential for achieving a quality digital performance and experience.
Anderson, L. & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Allyn-Bacon Longman.
Assessment Reform Group (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Research-based principles to guide classroom practice. [viewed 30 May 2010] http://www.assessment-reform-group.org/CIE3.PDF
Becker, K. (2006). Unlearning: A people development issue for sustainable change and innovation. In 7th International CINet (Continuous Innovation Network) Conference, 8-12 September, Lucca, Italy. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/10788/ [viewed 30 May 2010; access denied 20 Jun 2010]
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80. [verified 20 Jun 2010] http://blog.discoveryeducation.com/assessment/files/2009/02/blackbox_article.pdf
Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: Children's learning in the age of digital culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Buckingham, D. (Ed.) (2008). Youth, identity and digital media. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [verified 20 Jun 2010] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/dmal/-/6
Cheong, C. M. & Cheung, W. S. (2008). Online discussion and critical thinking skills: A case study in a Singapore secondary school. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 556-573. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/cheong.html
CISCO (2007). Equipping every learner for the 21st century: A white paper. San Jose, CA: Cisco Systems, Inc. [viewed 30 May 2010] http://www.cisco.com/web/about/citizenship/socio-economic/docs/GlobalEdWP.pdf
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. & Leu, D. (Eds.) (2008). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. Handbook of Research on New Literacies, 1-21. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cumming, J. & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2001). Literacy and curriculum: Success in senior schooling. Melbourne: ACER.
Economic Review Committee (ERC) (2002). Creative industries development strategy. [viewed 30 May 2010] http://app.mica.gov.sg/Portals/0/UNPAN011548.pdf
Facer, B. & Williamson, K. (2004). Designing technologies to support creativity and collaboration. Bristol: Futurelab. [viewed 30 May 2010] http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications_reports_articles/handbooks/Handbook195
Fisch, K., McLeod, S. & Bronman, J. (2006). Shift happens. Did you know? [video] In The Digital Blur [blog] http://thedigitalblur.com/2008/11/08/did-you-know-shift-happens-by-karl-fisch/ [viewed 13 Jun 2009, verified 20 Jun 2010]
Fisch, K., McLeod, S. & Bronman, J. (2008). Did you know? 3.0. [video, in YouTube; viewed 13 Jun 2009, not found 20 Jun 2010] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpEnFwiqdx8&feature=related
Flanagin, A. J. & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth and credibility, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, pp. 5-28. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.005
Fleming, D. (2008). Imagination, design and innovation: The drivers of 21st century success. Lead paper, Australian Council for Educational Leaders National Conference, New Metaphors for Leadership in Schools, 30 September - 2 October. [verified 20 Jun 2010; 1.8 MB, PowerPoint] http://www.acel.org.au/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/conference_2008/papers/Di%20Fleming.ppt
Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.
Gorry, G. (2009). Empathy in a virtual world. Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Management Working Papers Series. [viewed 30 May 2010, verified 20 Jun 2010] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1330478_code1193825.pdf?abstractid=1330478&mirid=1
Haas, C. & Wearden, S. T. (2003). E-credibility: Building common ground in web environments. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3(1/2), 169-184.
Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lang, P., Pascoe, C., Robinson, L. et al. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the Digital Youth Project. The John D. and Catherine T. Macarthur Foundation. [viewed 30 May 2010; 2.6 MB] http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouth-WhitePaper.pdf
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st Century. [viewed 30 May 2010, verified 20 Jun 2010] http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/full_pdfs/Confronting_the_Challenges.pdf
Keen, A. (2008). The cult of the amateur. How blogs, MySpace, YouTube and the rest of today's user-generated media are killing our culture and economy. Clerkenwell, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K. & Krause, K-L. (2008). First year students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/kennedy.html
Kimber, K., Pillay, H. & Richards, C. (2007). Technoliteracy and learning: An analysis of the quality of knowledge in electronic representations of understanding. Computers & Education, 48(1), 59-79.
Kimber, K. & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2008). Assessing digital literacies: Can assessment ever be the same? In L. Unsworth (Ed.), New literacies and the English curriculum, 328-354. London, UK: Continuum.
Kimber, K. & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2009). Valued knowledges and core capacities for digital learners: Claiming spaces for quality assessment. In A. Burke & R. Hammett (Eds.), Assessing new literacies: Perspectives from the classroom, 133-156. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, Autumn, 212-218.
Lankes. R. D. (2008). Trusting the Internet: New approaches to credibility tools. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth and credibility, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, pp.101-121. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [viewed 30 May 2010, verified 20 Jun 2010] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.101
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Rankin Macgill, A. & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. [viewed 30 May 2010] http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-and-Social-Media.aspx
Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J. & Cammack, D. (2004). Towards a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading, pp. 1570-1613. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. [verified 20 Jun 2010] http://www.reading.org/Publish.aspx?page=bk502-54-Leu.html&mode=retrieve&D=10.1598/0872075028.54&F=bk502-54-Leu.html&key=5B2B5225-7D93-4059-9D35-909274398A62
Levy, M. & Kimber, K. (2009). Developing an approach for comparing students' multimodal text creations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4), 489-508. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet25/levy.html
McGonigal, J. (2008). Why I love bees: A case study in collective intelligence gaming. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning, pp. 199-228. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [viewed 30 May 2010, verified 20 Jun 2010] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262693646.199
McWilliam, E. (2005). Unlearning pedagogy. Journal of Learning Design, 1(1), 1-11. http://www.jld.qut.edu.au/publications/vol1no1/documents/unlearning_pedagogy.pdf
McWilliam, E. & Haukka, S. (2008). Educating the creative workforce: New directions for twenty-first schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 651-666.
Metzger, M. J. & Flanagin, A. J. (Eds.) (2008). Digital media, youth and credibility. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [viewed 30 May 2010, verified 20 Jun 2010] http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/dmal/-/2
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2007). National Assessment Program - ICT literacy Years 6 and 10 Report, 2005. ACER. [viewed 30 May 2010; 1.8 MB] http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/NAP_ICTL_2005_Years_6_and_10_Report.pdf
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2008). Melbourne Declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf
Partnerships for 21st Century Skills (2009). P21 Framework Definitions explained: White paper. [viewed 19 Jun 2009 at http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/p21_framework_definitions_052909.pdf; verified 20 Jun 2010 at http://www.p21.org/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf]
Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council's Working Group (2005). Imagine Australia: The role of creativity in the innovation economy. [viewed 30 May 2010] http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/B1EF82EF-08D5-427E-B7E4-69D41C61D495/8625/finalPMSEICReport_WEBversion.pdf
Robinson, K. (2006). Do schools kill creativity? TED Conference, USA. [viewed 30 May 2010; verified 20 Jun 2010] http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
Robinson, K., Minkin, L., Bolton, E., French, F., Fryer, l., Greenfield, S., et al. (1999). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education Report. [viewed 23 Feb 2008, verified 20 Jun 2010] http://www.cypni.org.uk/downloads/alloutfutures.pdf
Sadler, D. R. (1985). The origins and functions of evaluative criteria. Educational Theory, 35(3), 285-297.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
The Conference Board of Canada (2008). Compendium of research papers: The international forum on the creative economy. Canada: The Conference Board of Canada. [verified 20 Jun 2010] http://www.conferenceboard.ca/documents.aspx?did=2701
The New London Group (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, 9-37. London: Routledge.
Walsh, C. (2007). Literacy in the new media age: Creativity as multimodal design. Paper presented at Critical Capital: Teaching and Learning, AATE and ALEA National Conference, July 8-11. [verified 20 Jun 2010; 2.2 MB] http://www.englishliteracyconference.com.au/files/documents/Papers/Refereed%20Papers/Chris%20Walsh.pdf
Wyatt-Smith, C. M. (2001). The function of evaluative talk to structure instructional sequences. In J. Cumming & C. M. Wyatt-Smith (Eds.), Literacy and the curriculum: Success in senior secondary schooling (pp.117-131). Melbourne: ACER.
Wyatt-Smith, C. & Cumming, J. (2003). Curriculum literacies: Expanding domains of assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(1), 47-59.
Wyatt-Smith, C. & Kimber, K. (2005). Valuing and evaluating student-generated online multimodal texts: Rethinking what counts. English in Education, 39(2), 22-43.
Wyatt-Smith, C. & Kimber, K. (2010). How shall we know them? Student assessment and digital futures. In M. Lee & G. Finger (Eds.), Developing a networked school community: A guide to realising the vision, pp. 259-275. Camberwell, Victoria: ACER Press.
The 2004 task was designed as a cross-curricular, inquiry-based activity that focused on the environmental threats posed by plastic bags. The 2006 online task retained its inquiry-based framing but had a greater emphasis on web site evaluations. It focused on biometrics, global warming, or the participating school's own curricular focus. Unlike the 2004 task where students were required to present a solution to a problem, the 2006 task required students to investigate alternative views on the topic and represent findings.
Further details about the study and samples of student creations are available on the website, http://www.griffith.edu.au/education/creating-knowledge
|Authors: Dr Kay Kimber, Director, Centre for Continuing Professional Learning|
Faculty of Education, Mt Gravatt Campus, Griffith University
176 Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt, Brisbane Qld 4122
Professor Claire Wyatt-Smith, Dean
Faculty of Education, Mt Gravatt Campus, Griffith University
176 Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt, Brisbane Qld 4122
Please cite as: Kimber, K. & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2010). Secondary students' online use and creation of knowledge: Refocusing priorities for quality assessment and learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(5), 607-625. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/kimber.html