Pilot Wiki Implementation - Lessons Learned on Collaboration

1. Pilot Implementation of
Wikis – Lessons Learned on
Collaboration
Verily Tan verilytansl
Allan Chia allanchiabh
Steven Wong stevenwonghm
Yew Haur Lee leeyh
SIM University @unisim.edu.sg

2. Introduction

3. Collaboration
Two or more students Collection of individuals who
laboring together and sharing are interdependent, and who
the workload equitably as share responsibility for
they progress toward outcomes. The team works
intended learning outcomes within time constraints to
(Barkley, Cross & Major , produce work that involves the
2005) application of knowledge,
judgment and expertise, often
to the solution of a unique
Characteristics of successful problem (Cohen & Bailey, 1997)
collaboration:
1. Equity of effort
2. Positive interdependence Collaboration or Teamwork is a
3. Individual and group skill highly sought after by
responsibility employers. It has also been
4. Achievement of working identified as a significant
solutions or graduate outcome of education.
learning outcomes (Riebe, Roepen & Santarelli,
2008)

4. Wikipedia – A Tool to Support Collaboration
• Offers collaborative, constructive learning environments
(McMullin, 2005)
• “Wiki” = “Quick” (Hawaiian)
• Uses simplified hypertext markup
• New users only need to learn a few formatting tags.
• Includes a range of features to facilitate multi-author
interactions, e.g. email or RSS notifications of page edits
(Judd, Kennedy & Cropper, 2010)
• Data on contributions to every page, when it was made, and
who made it, are all captured in the history page of the wiki.
• Allows the lecturer to judge both the quantity and quality
of contributions by different group members (Elgort, Smith
& Toland, 2008).

5. Measure of Collaboration in Wikis
Hughes and Narayan (2009) Leung and Chu (2009)
• Questionnaires with questions on Analyzed the following from the
perceived collaboration, the history feature
frequency and type of edits in • number and dates of
their study. contributions,
• Data were analyzed together with • version changes, and
student responses to open ended • discussions
questions
Judd, Kennedy and Cropper (2010)
Data on the following was harvested
• all versions of students’ wiki pages,
• time students spent on edits,
• number and types of edits,
• number of page edits and
• frequency of edits.
These records were used to assess students’ level of
collaboration and cooperation.

6. Pilot Implementation of Wiki

7. Use of Wikis for Group-Based Assignment
• Group-Based Assignment (GBA)
• Students work on stipulated questions in groups of three
• Write-up or essay (Microsoft Word document) submitted through the
university’s learning management system.
• Problems
• free riders, and the
• lack of real collaboration
• Use of Wiki for GBA?
• MKT357: Advertising and Promotion (blended e-learning module)
• Each group of students was allocated a wiki, which was password
protected, and not available in the public domain.
• Email notifications of edits by members were enabled for each group.

8. Use of Wikis for Group-Based Assignment
• Sections in the wiki page were created for each group
(scaffolds)
• working areas where members could input their ideas
• consolidation areas where members would collaboratively
write the essay for submission
• Students were taught to color code their contributions in the
working area so that the instructor would have a quick
overview of the group progress, and individual student
contribution.
• Before the deadline, students are required to convert their
group wiki page into a PDF document, for submission via
Turnitin for plagiarism checks.

9. Use of Wikis for Group-Based Assignment
• GBA:
• Q1: Critique of three advertisements
• Q2: Collaboratively write a creative brief for a client (to
emulate the actual task advertisers perform in real life)
• 90% of the marks – content; 10% - participation
• The course was facilitated by four instructors. They had been
trained in a dedicated session
• Assignment took place over a period of 4 weeks

10. Use of Wikis for Group-Based Assignment
• Students were briefed on the use of the wiki during the first
face-to-face session of the course. (1.5 hours)
• Big cohort of 192 students
• Students were briefed in normal classrooms in their
respective tutorial groups (each group shared one
laptop)
• Limited hands-on practice
• Provided with Wiki manual, online demonstrations
• Sample wiki was provided, which included a project plan,
simulated input by different authors in different colors, and
the final essay consolidation

11. Purpose of Study
1. Would the use of the wiki alleviate the problems of free
riders, and lack of collaboration?
2. What is students’ perception of wikis?

12. Data Collection
Questionnaire (15 questions)
A. Students’ Perception of the Wiki
• 6 questions based on 5-point Likert scale; 1 question on the mode of
communication
B. Scoring of Group Collaboration
• 4 questions utilizing a scale of 1-10
Students were asked to score their group on:
(1) Organization
(2) Positive Interdependence
(3) Equity of Effort
(4) Final Goal/Outcome
Mean of the total score (four items) for each member of the group was taken as
the group’s perceptual measure of collaboration. This is represented by
Mean(B_Total).
C. Demographic Data
• Number of edits per student per week was collected based on the wiki
page history.

13. Data Collection
• Survey administered through the student portal, with a response rate of
98.4%.
• The survey respondents (n=189; No of groups=64) :
• The majority of students (82.3%) were between 20-30 years old.
• 33.3% rated themselves fairly skilled in computer skills, 49.2% rated
themselves intermediate, and 15.3%, Power User.
• Group size:
• Majority of the groups consisted of three members (89.1%)
• 3 groups had four members.
• 1 group had one member (due to last minute student withdrawal from
the course)

14. Sample of Student Work
Team Wiki
(http://ununhexium.unisim.edu.sg/wikis/mkt357/t06_gr
oup01/ )

15. Results & Discussion

16. Free Riders
• Wiki implementation took place smoothly. The GBA
submissions and instructor grading were uneventful.
• “Free riders” problem appears to be resolved
• Participation score (10%) awarded to the students to each
member of the group was the same for 96.9% of the groups.

17. Student Usage of Wikis
Fig. 2: Variability Chart for Number of Edits vs. Week
Each point represents the number of edits per student – 189 data points per week
Each point is color-coded according to the group the student belongs to – 64 colors per week
• Mean number of edits per student for.
Week 1 – 4.63 (excluding three outliers)
Week 2 - 3.62
Week 3 - 5.94
Week 4, the mean number of edits shot up to 21.29
• Late minute edits were not unexpected. (Judd, Kennedy & Cropper, 2010). This trend
raises the doubt on the possibility of extensive collaboration between group members.

18. Interaction Vs. Students’ Perceived Collaboration Score
• If we define interaction as more than one member editing
the wiki
• 10.9% of groups had no interaction for three weeks
• 26.6% for two weeks
• 37.5% for one week
• Only 15 groups (23.4%) had more than one member editing
the wiki every week. By segregating these groups apart from
the rest, we obtain Fig. 3.

19. Interaction Vs. Students’ Perceived Collaboration Score
15 groups (with more interactions)
Fig. 3: Variability Chart for Number of Edits vs. Week (Comparison)
Comparison of Groups with (more than one member editing the wiki every week = No) and
Groups with (more than one member editing the wiki every week = Yes)
• Mean number of edits for the groups with (more than one member editing the wiki
every week = Yes) for Weeks 1 to 3 are about double compared to groups with (more
than one member editing the wiki every week = No).
• Week 4 - mean numbers of edits are similar between these two segregations of groups.

20. Interaction Vs. Students’ Perceived Collaboration Score
• If interactions can be used as a measure of collaboration,
groups with (more than one member editing the wiki every
week = Yes) should have a higher amount of collaboration
compared with groups with (more than one member editing
the wiki every week = No)
• Expect a higher Mean(B_Total) for the former compared to
the latter
• Two sample t-test was carried out using an alpha value of
0.05. The p-value is 0.433, indicating no significant difference
in the groups’ perceptual measure of collaboration, between
groups with (more than one member editing the wiki every
week = Yes) and groups with (more than one member editing
the wiki every week = No)
• Interactions – not an accurate indication of collaboration?

21. Collaboration – Outside of the Wiki
Communication Mode indicated as % of students
Most Important
Email 15.9%
*SMS 14.8%
Face-to-face meetings 13.2%
Wiki 10.1%
• Such collaboration may explain why interactions on
the wiki alone may not be an accurate measure of
collaboration.
• *Simultaneous edits - A page locking mechanism
prevents overriding of content by users who save
their edits concurrently.
Editing the group wiki near the deadline may have
resulted in students co-coordinating the timing of
their edits using SMS.

22. Students’ Perception of Wikis
• 47.0% of students disagreed that the wiki was a useful
platform for collecting ideas, opinions and organizing
information as a group.
• 48.7% of students disagreed that the wiki was a convenient
platform for the Group-Based Assignment.
• Some students found no intrinsic value in the use of wikis
at all, alluding to it causing more time and effort spent on
the assignment.
• Some felt the use of wikis resulted in a misplaced focus on
technical aspects, rather than the course content.

23. Student Perceptions of Wikis
• Technical Difficulties
• 22.7% of students encountered technical difficulties using the wiki
platform
• Formatting and color coding
• Simultaneous edits
• Some students who encountered this error did not perform the
necessary steps to save their work.
• Some students were not confident about how to deal with the error,
choosing to “take turns” in editing.

24. Appreciation of the Potential of Wikis
• “It's good as we do not have to wait for our group mates to
submit their contribution (in Word document) to one another
before we can comment and edit. So time wise, it's quite
good.”
• “I think I have gained a new skill and knowledge on this work
sharing program. This is exceptionally useful for projects in
modules like Marketing. I like this platform of sharing
workload and discussion. I hope that in future, the University
can look into introducing wikis to other modules.”

25. Conclusion & Recommendations

26. Conclusion
• Evidence of the wiki alleviating the problem of free riders
• No conclusive data on student collaboration in the wiki.
• Last minute edits - possibility of extensive collaboration?
• Designing learning activities that are collaborative in nature,
or simply using “collaborative” technologies like wikis, does
not ensure or encourage student collaboration. (Judd,
Kennedy & Cropper, 2010)
• The following needs to be addressed:
• students’ negative perception
• students’ tendency towards last minute interaction and
edits in the wikis

27. Recommendation (1) http://www.flickr.com/photos/
rhruzek/4283476436/
Provide Hands-on Training and Orientation Activity (Build Trust and Belief)
• 54.0% of students disagreed that the face-to-face training session
prepared them well on how to use the wiki as a collaborative platform for
the GBA.
• Transition to the use of wiki was not smooth or students’ inherent
resistance was not overcome by the perceived merits of the wiki
• Technical concerns or a lack of trust in technology in general, can have a
negative influence on the perceived effectiveness of wiki-based
collaboration.
• Not achieving an appropriate level of conceptual understanding may lead
to a lack of trust in the wiki collaboration process, preventing users from
embracing it fully and using it to best effect (Judd, Kennedy & Cropper,
2010; Davies, 2004).

28. Recommendation (1)
• Learning by participation and experience is important.
• Hands-on training for all, i.e. each student should have access to a
laptop or computer
• Students need more time to adjust to the formatting features in the
wiki, to learn the correct steps to take when they encounter the error
page during concurrent saving of edits.
• Orientation activities
• Self-introductions, or “ice-breaker activities” (Judd, Kennedy &
Cropper, 2010; Minocha et. al, 2007).
• Plan should also focus on how to use the wiki in a productive manner
(Robertson, 2008).
• Case studies of successful utilization of the wiki in corporations should
be cited to help users overcome initial apprehension and boost
perceived effectiveness and belief in the concept (Davies, 2004).
• Trust and belief in the technology and concept of wiki will motivate
students towards more active usage.

29. Recommendation (2)
Enhance the Wiki as a Collaboration Tool
• Collaboration involves communication. A good communication tool
should: (Lomas, Burke & Page, 2008)
• allow natural interactions
• have an easy-to-understand, intuitive interface
• a new tool should have better capabilities than its predecessor. The
tool should also have a seamless integration with main applications
• To engineer a less “painful” transition to the use of the wiki for
collaboration, we are exploring the following options.
1. Make use of the wiki functionality available in Blackboard – advantage of
seamless integration with the University learning management system.
2. Google documents - although page history is not available, benefit of near
zero learning curve for students
3. Enhance MediaWiki to incorporate a WYSIWYG editor, e.g. CKEditor
(http://ckeditor.com/)

30. Edit View in MediaWiki

31. Edit View in MediaWiki with CKEditor
Improved editing and formatting features
Similar to Microsoft Word

32. Recommendation (3)
Use Wikis in Combination with other
Communication Tools
• Collaboration is a science in itself
(Tuckman, 1965; Pineda & Lerner,
2006).
• This complex process is not
easily measured, and is
unlikely to be fully captured on
the wiki.
• Instructors may find the
analysis of the history page of
group wikis too daunting in
assessing for collaboration.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38795936@N00/308014588/

33. Recommendation (3)
• Increase the synergy between the wiki and other communication modes
to make wiki assignments more flexible. (Davis, 2004)
• Make collaboration methods like wiki, email and even face-to-face
meetings work together in the most simple and intuitive way, with the
ultimate outcome of achieving collaboration.
• Wiki input can include: (Working area)
• Notes of meeting
• Word document attachments
• Email correspondence
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maximalideal/4735417081/

34. Recommendation (4)
Redesign the Assessment or Activity (Include Elements to Motivate
Students)
• Collaboration on a wiki requires time, effort and most importantly,
motivation.
• Relative short time frames, modest assessment weighting may not have
motivated students sufficiently to effectively engage in the task. (Judd,
Kennedy & Cropper, 2010).
• Online collaborative learning on a wiki can be excellent for (Sanger, 2010)
1. exchanging written ideas, especially when those involved are
interested and motivated
2. obtaining free public reviews of students’ work.

35. Recommendation (4)
• In redesigning our GBA, we could:
• Encourage the exchange of ideas by pairing groups together for peer
reviews. One group could act as the “real life client” for the other. This
could serve as a motivation for both groups.
• Obtain instructor feedback at important milestones of the wiki
assignment. Instructor involvement can also pace the development of
the wiki, as students become cognizant of the monitoring of the wiki –
not just for submission, but during its development.
• A new assessment design would entail more time, for both student and
instructor. Adjustments to the timeline and assessment weightage are
recommended.

36. Limitation
• Data in this study was based on edits and interaction in the
wiki.
• More data on collaboration can be obtained from the page
history of the wiki, e.g. types of edits, time spent on edits
and frequency of edits.
• The participation marks awarded by instructors was based
primarily on the color coding by authors in the working areas
of their group wikis.
• The accuracy of this measure can be validated with the
wiki page history.

37. Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the following people from SIM University:
• Technical Training Team, Educational Technology &
Production, for their unwavering support and
professionalism
• A/P Sharen Liu, Director, Educational Technology &
Production
• Prof Koh Hian Chye, Dean, School of Business
• Ms Peggy Su, Ms Regina Yeo, Mr Bernard Law, Mr Ray
Monteverde

38. Power Point Slides
• Slideshare
• verilytan