Developing a metric for determining student impact on Wikipedia processes. 1. Identify classes that have been involved on English Wikipedia. Divide them into five groups: A) Classes that participated within the USA/Canada framework who had a campus or online ambassador. B) Classes that participated within the USA/Canada framework who had an instructor who had extensive editing experience on Wikipedia. C) Classes that participated within the USA/Canada framework who had a zero guidance and the who did not use an ambassador. D) Classes that participated independently where their work was clearly structured around an instructor user page or some other instructor created space outside of the programme. E) Classes that neither utilized the programme, nor utilized other space. These groups will be used for comparisons to measure the relative success of each group. 2. Amongst these five groups, identify if a class was involved in any of the following processes: In The News, Did You Know, Good Article, Featured Article, Featured Picture, Peer Review, in Wikiproject assessment, Articles for Creation and Articles for Deletion. In these categories, do the following: A) For instructors: i) Get the instructor's instructional objective and lesson plans specifically as they pertain to this assessment task. This includes criteria used for measuring this objective. Analyze specific instructional objective for how it aligns with the objectives of the assessment process. How well do they align? Compare the differences across all five groups. ii) Get the instructor's syllabus, the whole course objectives and as possibly the curriculum standards for the course. Analyze the instructor's instructional objectives for the assessment process as it relates to the overall syllabus and curriculum standards. How well do they align? Compare the differences across all five groups. iii) Find instructor's Wikipedia account. Track the volume of instructor edits during the period when their course was live, after and before overall. Track the number of edits made by instructors in the assessment processes, how many were made to their student related pages and to other pages. iv) Survey the instructor asking how the they felt English Wikipedia assisted them in meeting core instructional objectives for their course. Also ask about their editing experiences in assessment processes. v) Chart how instructors were involved with student work that was involved with assessment. How often did the ambassador edit the articles? Did they review a GA/DYK? If yes, what was the pass/fail rate by the assessment type? Was the instructor overturned? (GA pass taken to GAN. DYK ending up rejected. C class taken down to start. Tags removed by an instructor put back.) vi) Chart how often instructor voted in things related to student work and how often this supported or opposed the final consensus view. (AfD, Merge, etc.) SORT RESPONSES BY FIVE CLASSROOM TYPES. B) For students: i) Get all the support materials students were given prior to being required to work on an assessment related task from the instructor. Ask students what they were given. ii) Track student edits before, during and after the course. iii) How many total edits did a student make to their user page, to article specific talk page, and to article before submitting it for the assessment. iv) Track the success percentage of students going through an assessment process. (Did their DYK appear on the main page? Did their GA pass?) If failed the assessment process, identify the cause. For example: Asssment process malformed, article had copyvios, article was not long or new enough, article not fully source, article not reliably sourced, article not notable enough. SORT RESPONSES BY FIVE CLASSROOM TYPES. C) For ambassadors: i) Graph their edits to various assessment processes before, during and after the course. ii) Chart how ambassadors were involved with student work that was involved with assessment. How often did the ambassador edit the articles? How many comments did they make to a student's talk page? How many comments did they make to an article talk page? Did they review a GA/DYK? If yes, what was the pass/fail rate by the assessment type? Was the instructor overturned? (GA pass taken to GAN. DYK ending up rejected. C class taken down to start. Tags removed by an ambassador put back.) iii) Chart how often ambassadors voted in things related to student work and how often this supported or opposed the final consensus view. (AfD, Merge, etc.) iv) Survey ambassadors for their views on the various assessment processes, how often they participated prior to the class. v) Collect all materials the ambassador were given before and during the course by the instructor to help the ambassador support the class. vi) Ask ambassadors if they believe the student work helped students meet the stated course objectives. Ask ambassadors what percentage of student contributions they feel worked towards Wikipedia's ideals for content improvement. SORT RESPONSES BY FIVE CLASSROOM TYPES. D) For people involved with assessment processes: i) Get a list of people involved in an assessment area at the time a class was active. Find out which percentage of these editors were involved in classroom work. Find out the editing patterns for people involved in an assesment process: Which percentage of their assessment work involved students? What was the percentage before the class was involved? What was the percentage afterwards? What were the edit counts in their main contribution periods before, during and after a class was active? This is trying to determine the impact of student involvement on normal editing processes. (Did they neglect others because of students? Did they contribute less because of student supervision? Did they decrease editing as a result?) ii) Survey people people involved with assessment and ask their feelings about being involved with coursework. Survey what they feel like it did to their other editing. Ask if about their motives and if it changed because of possibility of a student being given a grade for the assessor's work. iii) Determine how often the person passed/failed a student's work. Track the reasons why it they did not pass a student's work. iv) Compare the assessor's student pass/fail rate to the assessor's non-student pass/fail rate. Track the reasons they did not pass a contributor's work. SORT RESPONSES BY FIVE CLASSROOM TYPES. E) Other contributors: i) Identify contributors to articles used in the assessment process by students. Track the edits by those contributors to those articles before, during and after course involvement. Purpose is to determine local article specific editing changes. ii) Track these contributors overall edit count totals to all articles before, during and after a course for contributors who had edited now student being worked on articles. Purpose is to measure how this impacted on their overall editing. iii) Survey these contributors to ask how a class working on the article impacted their willingess to edit the article. iv) Ask contributors where they would find information on student coursework if a contributor had questions about what was happening to an article. SORT RESPONSES BY FIVE CLASSROOM TYPES. F) The assessment space: i) Identify the volume of contributions to an assessment before, during and after an assessment process for totals. What percentage was student work? ii) Identify lengths of times for assessment for student work and non-student work. How long before a work was assessed and by whom was it assessed? How long did the assessment take from start to finish? iii) Identify at the overall pass/fail rate for articles before, during and after for student versus non-student work. 3. Analyze the above by comparing the five different groups. This will give an idea on if students are disruptive, how they are potentially disruptive, which groups are the least disruptive, how normal assessment compares to assessment done of student work, and how this impacts other contributor edits. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com