The only complaint I have about the course is that I find it very difficult to include both assessment and evaluation into only one course. On the assessment part, students expect to spend a lot of time discussing classroom assessment and developing skills in the classroom. It takes a lot of time and discussion to help students develop a vocabularly to discuss assessment in the terms that educational researchers and assessment-savvy educators use. Then suddenly, bam-- let's switch to program evaluation. Yes, in one sense it's a micro to macro perspective, but I always feel like the evaluation portion is rushed.

The best part of the class is that it was very hands-on. Most of the students currently teach, so the project for formative assessment was for them to conduct action research whereby they thoughtfully integrated a formative assessment strategy into their classroom practice and reflected on the results and noted how it would impact their future practice. For the students who are not teachers, they did an inquiry into the assessment practices of someone who is currently teaching through interviews and observation.

Instructors should have aha moments too. My aha moment over the course of the semester and in tandem with my own work which is increasingly heavily assessment-oriented was that feedback is at the center of instructional practice. While some instructors understand this intuitively, others are not aware of how crucial it is. One of the students in the class, who teaches in an informal setting (thus making assessment that much more challenging) simply changed up the introduction to the lesson in a way that required the kids she was working with to reflect on what they were creating. Simply adding a question can radically change an entire lesson and the way someone else is thinking about their own work. That's powerful.

In the original post to which they refer, the author relays an exchange that highlights a huge issue not just with the web 2.0 world of assessment, but with group assessment in general:

Jeff Utecht: How would you assess a student who changed a single word?
Ryan Bretag: Think about contributing one word from a poetry standpoint, how critical is one word? Writing in a hypertext society makes that one word critical.- From the Strength of Weak Ties.

If a group of students is working together and one student serves as the student who conceptualizes an idea, and the other students work diligently to carry out the idea at the direction of the first student, did the self-selected/group-elected leader contribute more?  And now, when collaboration takes place through a more transparent record, for example, if you use a wiki, how do you ascertain individual student's contributions. One of the references on The Strength of Weak Ties is to a wiki that uses a framework of significant contribution versus constructive modification. The creator of that rubric, David Kuropatwa noted previously on his own blog the distinction between these two varieties of contribution and the special challenge of "constructive modification" as a critical thinking process is addressed. In determining assessment strategies, one could also do as Ben Wilkoff did and turn it over to the students to discuss.

I encounter more often the issue raised by another blogger who noted failure to integrate wikis in a way that led to student creation of content.   Even the earlier example of the math wiki is very structured, with questions I assume were determined by the teacher for students to answer.

Not in these posts and discussions but in society at large, I see a lot of confusion about the purpose of a wiki. And for that matter, a lot of suspicion about externalized collaboration in education. Though a wiki is in written form, it is, for me, at least, an externalization of thought process and collaboration. At its most elaborate (for example wikipedia), it can be a valuable resource, but most of the time it will reflect information that is targeted for a specific community. In some cases, the information gathered might have outlived its purpose (not unlike, by the way, many websites!). The wiki exists not to document forever and ever, but to provide an opportunity for collaboration as those collaborating make connections in their own minds and developed their own questions, ideas, and analyses. That too is the power of the wiki, that it can change and grow as its purpose and function expand. Wikis offer an opportunity to externalize the work of a collective mind, which directly contradicts the typical education model which requires us to assess each student purely for their individual contribution (most of the time). And there are a lot of students and teachers experimenting with how to make it work.