Assessment Framework: Project Plan

Project Name: Assessment Framework

  • Responsible: @vanessa
  • Accountable: @1L2P (Philipp)
  • Consulted: @bekka , other assessment experts
  • Informed: P2PU Community

Google doc:

Budget: No new Budget: Hewlett deliverable from 2011-2013

Project Team & Roles (who does what)

  • @vanessa : Primary author, research examples from P2PU community, academic literature, solicit feedback, integrate comments, revise as necessary.
  • @1L2P : Work with @vanessa to provide constructive feedback
  • @bekka: Assist with promotional/marketing plan when needed, chime in with feedback

Milestones (dates & deliverables)

  • July 1 2013: First complete draft
  • July 23 2013: Comments solicited from @bekka, @1L2P, Karen Brennan
  • August 1 2013: Additional research conducted, 2nd draft complete
  • August 15 2013: Second draft sent to Mitch Resnick, Natalie Rusk, Erin Knight, Alex Halavais
  • September 1 2013: Revised 3rd draft published on

Next step(s)
@vanessa: goes over @1L2P’s comments, integrates new research, revises for a 2nd draft
@1L2P: helps clarify vision and scope
@vanessa spends July 23-August 1 only on Assessment document (clear of new projects) to have revised draft by August 1.

Hey @Vanessa - Can you share links to the draft blog posts (or send privately). The link in your etherpad points to the DML report.

Hi @vanessa,

I read through your document entitled “The Case for Community-Based Assessment” and I enjoyed reading it very much. I have taken issue with scholastic assessment methodologies for a long time, and have always felt that typical Q&A is great if used as a kind of Socratic method for teaching, but falls horribly short of assessing mastery of subject matter. Anyway, I have some suggestions regarding the document.

Firstly, I see that at the top of the document it is noted that the introduction does not “set up the document”. I would agree with this, as your title begins with “The Case for…”, but the content does not really make the case for anything, it seems more of a review of open learning initiatives, and various assessment techniques and principals. What I would recommend is to remedy this in two ways: 1) Add a thesis statement, and 2) I would add a section on current issues with traditional scholastic assessment methodology. The reason this is very important to add, is so that it gives academic justification to the need for a new assessment-framework; thus “making the case for…” the proposed assessment framework.

Secondly, the conclusion seems to lack structure. Once you have a concise thesis statement within your introduction, use that to guide the structure of your conclusion; summarizing how you have dealt with that topic statement.

A third point is that you often refer to P2P in the first person. The convention in academic writing is to avoid the first and second person, and to write in the third person. There are a number of good reasons for this, and I urge you to consider making this change throughout your paper.

Overall the document is very good, and I enjoy the direction it takes. The comments above are just suggestions to make the document even better :slight_smile: I have other comments on certain smaller areas throughout the paper. If you would like, I can make comments within the document if you give me access to comment.

Thank you for your feedback, @ralfe :smile: