I had the
opportunity to create a wiki page in a previous course. A partner and I created and collaborated on a
wiki page about Josiah Hollbrook. I
agree with Johnson and Johnson (as cited in King and Cox 2011 ) that those that
work in teams will retain information longer than those that work alone. I can
remember most if not all of the information my partner and I gathered for the wiki
project.
A second pro
of wikis is attention to detail and a concern for the information contained in
the wiki page to be accurate. Wheeler and Wheeler (as cited in King & Cox
2011.) stated that students put forth much thought into the structure of
sentences, grammar, ensuring citations were accurate and overall made sure the
information provided in their wiki pages were easy to read. I agree with this
assertion by Wheeler and Wheeler. In my previous wiki experience, Mark and I
knew that our page was subject to review by not only the teacher, but also by
others in our class. We, therefore, wanted to ensure that the data incorporated
in the wiki was accurate and applicable.
A
potential con of a wiki is not choosing the correct version or type. West and West (2009) identified three types
of wikis: free services, fee-based-services and self-hosting. Choosing the wrong wiki solution could affect
the designed purpose of the wiki.
Another possible
con or challenge of a wiki in an educational environment is grading. Hazari and
North (2009) stated that to alleviate potential concerns of students, “a Wiki
rubric should set clear performance expectations….” (p. 189). In my previous wiki creation experience, I
feel the instructor provided clear guidance and instruction in the form of a
rubric and I will attempt to incorporate some of my lessons learned in my group’s
current wiki project.
Hazari, S., North, A., & Moreland, D. (2009).
Investigating pedagogical value of wiki technology. Journal of
Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187-198. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.er.lib.k-state.edu/docview/200157232?accountid=11789
King, K. P. & Cox, T. D. (2011). The
professor’s guide to taming technology: Leveraging digital media, web 2.0, and
more for learning. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
West, J. A. & West M. L. (2009). Using
wikis for online collaboration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Excellent post! You very clearly explain some of the pros and cons of wikis. Your point about rubrics was especially interesting to me as I hadn’t put much deep thinking into what such a rubric might look like. Most research I have seen mentions the necessity of a good rubric, but few concrete details are presented. West and West (2009) provide some samples (pp. 40 – 44). Do you have particular suggestions for elements to include or leave out? Should there be a different rubric for individual contributions and for the entire wiki created by all members of the team? I definitely believe that individuals should receive points or grades separate from the group, along with earning team points/grades. Is there a most efficient way a rubric can be written to make expectations clear?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts!
__________________________
West, J.A., & West, M. L. (2009). Using wikis for online collaboration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thank you for your post and your questions. I feel that West and West (2009) provided great sample rubrics and agree that both individual and team feedback is feasible. I like that the professor or the person evaluating the wiki site can see how many edits were made to the page and who did the editing.
DeleteWest, J.A., & West, M. L. (2009). Using wikis for online collaboration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
I, like you, remember well the content for our wiki page in Intro. However, I really do not remember anybody else’s wiki content unless I needed the information in subsequent classes. Was this the same experience for you? I see that as a disadvantage if you are working on content that all students need to know. I guess this would be true of most group work, now that I think about it.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you addressing the grading issue. I agree that a clear rubric is crucial. However, that will not always give you a clear picture if the work was evenly divided and all group members share the workload. As we do in this class, peer evaluations provide the instructor input into grading. Evaluations should be incorporated into projects as they are planned and be continuous throughout the process (Caffarella & Daffron, 2013). I find evaluations to be so helpful and the most likely detail to be overlooked.
Caffarella, R. S., & Daffron, S. R. (2013). Planning programs for adult learners: A practical guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
I agree with you in that I remember my wiki project very well. I recently went back and looked at some of the wiki pages and do remember some more than others. Thanks for posting.
DeleteYour comment about a clear rubric challenged the research and discussions I have read. Learning is most effective if it is meaningful; therefore, a tightly structured learning project may hamper creativity and meaning to the learner. Both of the articles I read as well as many of the other posts about wikis tout the creativity and openness of the technology as a valuable learning tool (Laughton, 2011, Part, Crocker, Nussey, Springate, & Hutchings, 2010). However, I also agree with you that a clear expectation for a learning project and what is expected for a grade are important. I have experienced classes where my interpretation of the requirements fell short of the instructors’ expectations and it is not only very demotivating but also difficult to recover. My favorite classes were my undergraduate history class where in lieu of papers we could create a PowerPoint slideshow (without presenting it to the class) and my graduate research class where the instructor defined what it took for an “A” or a “B” and either path I choose was acceptable. Both of my favorite classes were a good example of combining clear expectations with meaningful learner experiences that I will never forget.
ReplyDeleteReferences:
Laughton, P. (2011). The use of wikis as alternatives to learning content management systems. The Electronic Library, 29(2), 225-235. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02640471111125186
Part, C. L., Crocker, C., Nussey, J., Springate, J., & Hutchings, D. (2010). Evaluation of a teaching tool - wiki - in online graduate education. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(3), 313-321. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/763326771?accountid=35812