Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20

Download by: [National Cheng Kung University] Date: 15 March 2016, At: 10:30

Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: 1049-4820 (Print) 1744-5191 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

Enhancing successful outcomes of wiki-basedcollaborative writing: a state-of-the-art review offacilitation frameworks

Andrew Stoddart, Joe Yong-Yi Chan & Gi-Zen Liu

To cite this article: Andrew Stoddart, Joe Yong-Yi Chan & Gi-Zen Liu (2016) Enhancingsuccessful outcomes of wiki-based collaborative writing: a state-of-the-art reviewof facilitation frameworks, Interactive Learning Environments, 24:1, 142-157, DOI:10.1080/10494820.2013.825810

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.825810

Published online: 02 Aug 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 652

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Enhancing successful outcomes of wiki-based collaborative writing:a state-of-the-art review of facilitation frameworks

Andrew Stoddart, Joe Yong-Yi Chan and Gi-Zen Liu*

Foreign Languages & Literature Department, National Cheng Kung University, 1, University Road,Tainan City 701, Taiwan

(Received 24 December 2012; final version received 13 July 2013)

This state-of-the-art review research undertook a survey of a variety of studies regardingwiki-based collaborative writing projects and from this body of work extracted the bestpractices tenets of facilitation. Wiki-based collaborative writing projects are becomingmore common in second language (L2) pedagogy. Such projects have multiple aims.These include, among other benefits, L2 acquisition, P2P learning, collaboration andimmersion in new technologies that will inform the social and professional lives ofthe students. By mining a variety of wiki-based collaborative writing projects for thespecific meta and secondary facilitation practices, the researchers were able todevelop a general framework that will assist instructors of university or advancedhigh school students who wish to engage their students in such projects. Theattributes of good facilitation that the researchers have isolated are by no meansexhaustive, nor are they a guarantee of successful outcomes. These attributes do,however, provide a good starting point for any teacher or instructional designer whowants to provide an environment that fosters student satisfaction, motivation andlearning.

Keywords: wiki; writing; collaboration; facilitation; review; Web 2.0

Introduction

University and advanced high school students now have many opportunities and freelyavailable online tools to collaborate with others or learn independently using sophisticated,cutting-edge information and communication technology to develop various knowledgeand skills worldwide (Chiu & Liu, 2013; Liu, 2008, 2011; Liu & Hwang, 2010; Liu,Liu, & Hwang, 2011; Liu, Lo, & Wang, 2013; Liu, Wu, & Chen, 2013). Collaborativelearning and project work via wikis and other software have become very popular andwill increasingly become the format by which students within a class or across the worldcooperate to produce school works (Allwardt, 2011; Chao & Lo, 2011; Chen, Shih, &Liu, 2013; Ducate, Anderson, & Moreno, 2011; Li, Chu, Ki, & Woo, 2012; Storch,2011). A considerable body of research has been developed that seeks to understand thebenefits of collaborative learning that utilizes wikis (Davies, Pantzopoulos, & Gray,2011; Shu & Chuang, 2012; Weaver, Viper, Latter, & McIntosh, 2010; Wheeler &Wheeler, 2009; Xiao & Lucking, 2008). This review research has looked at the nature of

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: gizen@mail.ncku.edu.tw

Interactive Learning Environments, 2016Vol. 24, No. 1, 142–157, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.825810

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

collaboration in terms of motivation (Chao & Lo, 2011; Khandaker & Soh, 2010; Li et al.,2012; Weaver et al., 2010; Wong, Chen, Chai, Chin, & Gao, 2011), student enjoyment(Ducate et al., 2011; Wong et al., 2011), monitoring individual input into projects(Davies et al., 2011; Judd, Kennedy, & Cropper, 2010; Khandaker & Soh, 2010; Storch,2011), peer review (Chao & Lo, 2011; Ducate et al., 2011; Kuteeva, 2011; Pifarre &Fisher, 2011; Xiao & Lucking, 2008), and within the field of language acquisition , therole of wikis in language learning (Diez-Bedmar & Perez-Paredes, 2012; Storch, 2011;Wong et al., 2011). The research within most of these specific inquiries has been generallypositive (Chao & Lo, 2011; Wong et al., 2011; Xiao & Lucking, 2008), but there are anumber of studies, or particular areas of studies that have indicated negative responsefrom the participants in wiki collaborative projects (Ducate et al., 2011; Kuteeva, 2011;Li et al., 2012).

Most students will have encountered collaborative class work at some point during theireducation. This background coupled with students’ ubiquitous use of digital technologyvis-à-vis gaming, social media and a multitude of cell phone apps would suggest that enga-ging in collaborative work via a wiki would be almost second nature to most university stu-dents. However, the art of seeding a stimulating, productive and rewarding collaborationrequires a well-designed facilitation framework to avoid many of the pitfalls that canturn, what is meant to be a pleasurable exercise, into one of frustration.

A review of collaborative wiki research seems to illustrate an implicit variable thatlikely has a profound effect upon the participants’ response to using a wiki (Lin &Yang, 2011; Miyazoe & Anderson, 2010). That variable is the manner in which a colla-borative wiki is facilitated by the instructor (Lin & Kelsey, 2009). Of course, there arean infinite amount of variables from the participant’s personal traits, such as their learningstyle and their ability to work collaboratively to the software employed, and the partici-pants’ familiarity with the software, to the nature of the project itself. All of these willaffect the participants’ final critique of this method of collaboration and ultimately theirpositive or negative reaction to the use of wikis. Some research was conducted within avery considered facilitation framework (e.g., Chen et al., 2013; Lin & Kelsey, 2009) andsome with a distinct lack of a framework (e.g., Pifarre & Fisher, 2011). Digital mediado not offer a magic spell that increases productivity, motivation and enjoyment. Theyare not a tool that is used in isolation from numerous other factors that will determinethe successful implementation.

A review of research into the various aspects of wiki-based collaborative writing projectsreveals that the facilitation framework in which such a project is introduced, initiated andmonitored plays a vital role in a successful outcome (Bradley, Lindström, & Rystedt,2010; Lin & Kelsey, 2009; Kessler & Bikowski, 2010). The purpose of this state-of-the-artreview research was to establish a general facilitation framework, derived from the more suc-cessful projects, by which a teacher or instructional designer can, if not ensure, at least notreduce the potential for a successful outcome. Of course, an excellently considered andemployed facilitation framework in no way guarantees a successful outcome. However, thereverse, a non-existent framework or poorly facilitated project will certainly limit thechances of a successful project.

Definitions

This review relies on a number of terms that are used extensively throughout the literatureof computer-assisted learning and teaching. For the sake of clarity, the researchers havespecified the meanings intended in the usage. Within this review paper, wikis are considered

Interactive Learning Environments 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

any software programs that allow for collaborative writing via the Internet. There arenumerous programs that offer these functions. Each piece of software offers a variety offunctions that let the users add to the content and make comments regarding the content.

Collaboration is defined as two or more people working individually or together on aspecific project. There are many facets of collaboration that remain intriguing researchavenues, including psychology (inhibitions) of cooperation and multiple authorships.

Facilitation is a general term that encompasses a multitude of instructional practices.Here, the researchers mean it to include all aspects of classroom, and digital communicationfrom the instructor that introduces, prepares, monitors and responds to the students’ learn-ing needs. While facilitation obviously includes instruction regarding the specific assign-ment, it encompasses a much larger realm. It must include awareness and response toindividual cognitive abilities, individual psychology, psychology of groups and the specificaims of the course.

The results of the state-of-the-art review have been divided into two fields. Althoughthese can overlap, for the sake of clarity the researchers placed each facilitation attributeinto either a meta or secondary field. Meta attributes are those that are large andinvolve overall structure, and secondary attributes are those that are not aspects ofgrand design but assist in elevating student satisfaction, motivation and level of contri-bution to a project.

Literature review

Facilitation frameworks have not been an explicit research focus of wiki collaborativewriting project studies. Yet, each research study includes to a greater or lesser extentkeys to successful facilitation framework. To frame the study, the researchers used twofoci to situate the aims of this study. The first was a review of literature regarding the col-laborative nature of wikis, and the second was a literature review of research outcomes. Toan extent these two foci do overlap. The researchers used this dual approach to clarify thenarrative of collaboration within wikis and in terms of outcomes to qualify the possible endsthat could be achieved with a well-designed and implemented facilitation framework.

Collaborative learning with wiki writing

There is little doubt that the Internet has made collaborative projects more efficient. TheInternet allows people, regardless of the location, to work together in an efficient manner(Chao & Lo, 2011; Lin & Kelsey, 2009; Nuutinen, Sutinen, Botha, & Kommers, 2010;Shu & Chuang, 2012; Wheeler & Wheeler, 2009). However, the specific outcomes of col-laborative writing via wikis remain a fairly undocumented field. There are some studies thatindicate certain benefits. For example, Lin and Kelsey (2009) have shown that “CSCLenvironments can enhance the learning process and outcomes” (p. 149).

Using wikis has become fashionable within the ESL field in that it combines the chic oftechnology with the learning goals of language acquisition. Part of this allure is that com-puter-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) uses a multiplicity of formats to mediatecommunication between users (Lin & Kelsey, 2009). While wikis are the primarysources in which the writing occurs, this is supplemented by numerous other media thatallow for communication between students; forums, e-mail, video conferencing and chatrooms to facilitate communication and collaboration.

One aspect of collaborative writing through wikis that has been embraced is that ofextensive peer-to-peer learning assistance. Rather than having a dialectic relationship

144 A. Stoddart et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

between learner and teacher, wikis create an environment in which peers assume the role ofteachers. This establishes an intriguing scenario in which the student expands their role tobecome both learner and instructor. This, of course, has implications, not just for learning,but the power relations within a classroom.

The collaboration involved in these projects offers its own learning benefits. Elola andOskoz (2010) point out that “learners engage in a dialogue that impels them to notice gapsin their L2 production and then to test new hypotheses regarding language and literacyacquisition” (p. 52). This aspect of collaboration cannot be underestimated. Collaborationis not merely a group of people all contributing to an end product. The process itself is anintegral component of the learning that occurs. By witnessing others’ contributions andtheir inherent struggles with form and content, each student recognizes that theirdeficiencies are neither unique nor a source of embarrassment.

Wiki-based collaborative writing project outcomes

Although the focus of this paper is on the facilitation framework of collaborative wikiwriting projects, it will be useful to explore the outcomes of these types of academicwork. This is still a relatively new field, and definitive outcomes are not yet fully under-stood. However, the growing body of literature does provide an indication of potentialbenefits across a large spectrum of outcomes. These include increased confidence inwriting and greater quantities of work (Mak & Coniam, 2008), enhanced critical thinkingskills (Woo, Chu, Ho, & Li, 2011), greater equality in participation and students’ percep-tion of writing improvements (Miyazoe & Anderson, 2010) and a number of benefits to L2acquisition (Storch, 2011). The focus on facilitation is designed to improve the opportu-nities for the researcher or classroom instructor to generate these positive outcomes. Aliterature review that considers the outcomes of wiki collaborative writing projects willillustrate the targets that a best practices facilitation will attempt to achieve. It must beemphasized that the outcomes of much of the research is a little contradictory and depend-ing on the study can indicate both negative and positive outcomes. It should also be notedthat it can be difficult to demark the difference between the results achieved in a wiki-based collaborative writing project and a collaborative writing project that is not wikibased. It is natural to assume that many of the benefits of collaboration will apply inboth situations.

In the most general terms, wikis have been found to assist collaborative learning in anumber of ways. Woo et al. (2011) found that “the easy accessibility, simplicity and trans-parency of wiki pages helps learners to share information and resources among their teammembers and across groups, and makes it easier for students to work at their own pace”(p. 44). Others found that the implementation of wikis in collaborative writing projects sub-stantially increased the quantity of text produced and had a positive influence on the coher-ence and accuracy of the text (Mak & Coniam, 2008). They also found that the process wassupportive as students’ contributions increased as the project progressed.

One outcome that has been addressed by several researchers (Kessler, 2009; Woo et al.,2011) and stands out as an important finding for instructors wishing to employ wiki projectsis that compared with in-class F2F collaboration, students working in wiki formats aremuch more likely to contribute suggestions regarding form than suggest improvementsto grammatical errors. There are likely many factors that contribute to this reaction. Onesuggested by Kessler (2009) was that students felt they were “engaged in a task that theyrecognized as primarily focused on the creation of meaning” (p. 92) rather than a gramma-tical exercise that had the aim of perfect form.

Interactive Learning Environments 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

Although the specific cognitive and language benefits of working collaboratively inwikis have yet to be fully understood and documented, there are a number of attributesthat seem to arise throughout the literature. One is the positive response of students.Nicol et al. have shown that students have positive perceptions regarding wiki collaborativework and further that their use can improve the quality of their final product. Woo et al.(2011) emphatically state that with all the optimistic attitudes toward using this technology,there is a very important caveat. That is, as Woo et al. (2011) drawing on Engstrom andJewett’s work succinctly state, “the effectiveness of wiki application in learning and teach-ing depends on careful planning and training of both students and instructors to familiarizethem with the technology, on class size and on motivating students to learn from oneanother based on appropriate instructional design” (p. 44). The focus on this paper isbased on this concept.

Specifically, the researchers hope to isolate the best practices of wiki collaborativewriting project facilitation by carefully reviewing studies that have considered wikiswithin their research parameters.

Identifying the facilitation tenets of collaborative wiki writing projects

This review research conducted a range-specific and target-focused survey of contemporary2007–2012 research regarding collaborative writing projects that used wikis. From thisreview, the researchers considered the facilitation framework that was used and the partici-pants’ response to the overall experience and their specific critique of various aspects of theprocess. From the projects that were more successful, defined as those with more positiveparticipant response, the researchers collated the facilitation framework under which theproject was conducted in 2012. From these details, the researchers have constructed ageneral framework that teachers can use as a model to increase the likelihood of a positiveproject outcome of wiki-based collaborative writing assignments.

The research studies that were included in the review were retrieved from the Web ofScience (WOS) with the ISI Web of Knowledge (WOK) search engine using the searchterms wiki* AND collaborat* AND writ*. The asterisk means that the term is looselydefined and will include a number of variations of the word. For example, “writ*” wouldinclude, write, writes, writing, etc. These keywords were used in combination to searchin the WOS. The inclusion criteria are that the articles must (a) have been publishedbetween 2007 and 2012, (b) be journal articles and not papers of proceedings nor othertypes of documents (e.g., book reviews) and (c) have a focus on collaborative writing inwikis.

One hundred and thirteen papers were retrieved using the search terms wiki* ANDcollaborat* AND writ*. Of these searched papers, 105 papers met inclusion criterion (a).Fifteen nine papers fit inclusion criteria (a) and (b). Twenty-seven papers were selectedto be completely reviewed as they met criteria (a), (b) and (c), see Figure 1.

To further refine the search parameters, the researchers then chose the 10 papers that hadthe highest citation frequency in the WOK and had the greater impact factor in the JournalCitation Report: Computer Assisted Language Learning (294 [times cited]; 0.915 [impactfactor]), Educational Technology & Society (762; 1.011), Journal of Computer AssistedLearning (769; 1.464), Journal of Educational Computing Research (637; 0.440),Language Learning & Technology (449; 1.741), ReCALL (184; 0.950) and SYSTEM(827; 0.875) except the one from English Teaching: Practice and Critique (53; 0.216).All 27 papers were taken into account in this survey, and then the 10 most cited paperswere mined to produce a table of facts (see Table 1).

146 A. Stoddart et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

Results

The results of the review survey were based on a number of research studies that crosseddisciplines but focused on collaborative learning and the use of wikis as a tool to engendercollaborative writing projects. Many of the studies were within the field of second language(L2) learning. There is absolutely no scientific rationale to these results.

The researchers have sought to identify the tenets of facilitation that was advocated ineach. The researchers make no claims to a correlation between positive outcomes andspecific facilitation measures. By that, the researchers mean in a perfect world it wouldbe wonderful to correlate positive outcomes, in terms of student satisfaction and learning,with specific facilitation measures. This is probably untenable as there are so many factorsthat influence outcomes that to ascribe certain aspects of facilitation would be misleading.The researchers have relied on common sense. The researchers recognize that commonsense is an anathema to contemporary academic discourse. The researchers also believethat certain forms of inquiry cannot be adequately represented by digital data that arethen subjected to statistical analysis. The researchers are merely trying to isolate and con-sider some aspects of facilitation that have been used so that future researchers or practicingteachers that wish to incorporate wikis will have the opportunity to consider aspects offacilitation that they might not have otherwise considered. There is no magic formulathat will make a wiki collaborative project successful. However, there seem to be anumber of practical tenets that can be used that will assist in making a wiki project morepositive in terms of student satisfaction and learning outcomes.

Figure 1. Paper selection and review in this study.

Interactive Learning Environments 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

Table 1. The principles of facilitating a successful wiki-based collaborative writing project from 10 key papers published in selected SSCI journals from 2007 to2012.

Paper Research Principles

Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skillsamong secondary school students in Hong Kong(Mak & Coniam, 2008)

Secondary school year 7 ESL students in HongKong using wikis as a collaborative writingplatform

In the initial stage of learning how to use the wikis,ask students to discuss general issues instead ofcomplicated issues (it will reduce anxiety andaccelerate the learning process)

Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to acollaborative learning project (Trentin, 2009)

Evaluating the collaborative learning process of co-writing in PBwiki (now PB works)

Teachers should organize learners’ work to alloweach student to take a part in every developmentstage (This way, students will be motivated)

Teachers should build tables and formulas to monitorlearners’ participation and interactions.

Building a networked environment in wikis: Theevolving phases of collaborative learning in awikibook project (Lin & Kelsey, 2009)

Investigating learners’ interaction and collaborationin a graduate course wikibook project

At the beginning, teachers should design a practicearticle for students to learn how to use wikis and askstudents to rewrite others’ writing as practice.

Informal communication (e.g., discussion board inwiki) should be encouraged (Informalcommunication is student-driven)

Timely feedback should be provided whenmonitoring students

Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-basedcollaborative writing (Kessler, 2009)

Pre-service Non-Native Speaker (NNS) Englishteachers in a web content-based wikicollaborative writing course learning English-speaking countries’ cultures and correction ofgrammar errors

Teachers should carefully create and control thelearning environment which is student-centered, sothat autonomous collaboration will emerge

Teachers should provide learners with diversecontexts for interaction

Developing collaborative autonomous learningabilities in computer mediated languagelearning: Attention to meaning among students inwiki space (Kessler & Bikowski, 2010)

Analyzing phases of individual behaviors and groupcollaboration of pre-service Non-Native Speaker(NNS) English teachers in a web content-basedwiki collaborative writing course

Students may encounter plenty of challenges takingnew technology-enhanced tasks, and teachers hadbetter discuss them with the learners beforehand.

• To empower students to do autonomous wikiactivities with flexible assignments is importantbecause learners like to interact in various ways

148A.Stoddart

etal.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign languageand writing conventions development (Elola &Oskoz, 2010)

An advanced Spanish writing course to developlearners’ writing skills in Spanish and expandtheir personal experiences through collaborativewriting by using PBwiki (now PBworks)

When introducing learners unfamiliar genres,teachers should choose the methodologicalapproaches in which stress or frustration can beminimized

Rationalities of collaboration for language learningin a wiki (Bradley et al., 2010)

Swedish software engineering students withincomputer science, taking a 7-week advanced ESPcourse in Spring 2008.

Project intended to assist students in academicwriting exercises related to professional needs offuture software engineers

Breaking assignment into smaller units (This allowsan instructor to monitor and address problemsfaster). It also makes the task less intimidating to thestudent

Encouraging students to incorporate their owndeficiencies within the document (Specificallyadding non-assignment text. Example: “Please addmore info here. I need more”)

Encouraging cross-group critiques (Allows studentsto learn from others while simultaneously assistingtheir development)

Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions ofonline writing: Simultaneous implementation of aforum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learningsetting (Miyazoe & Anderson, 2010)

Blended ESL program for sophomore Japaneseuniversity students (included forums, blogs andwikis)

n = 61

Incorporated very early introduction of digital mediato be used (previous semester)

Allowed for the use of “screen names”. Lettingparticipants keep their identities anonymousencouraged greater participation and meant thatstudents felt less intimidated to critique others.

Used multiple formats for greater breadth and todemark activities; forums for discussion, blogs forthoughts and wikis for collaboration.

Using a Wiki to Scaffold Primary-School Students’Collaborative Writing (Woo et al., 2011)

Collaborative writing projects for a Hong Kongprimary-five English-language class in which theway wiki’s key affordances’ aid to scaffoldlearners is examined

Teachers should teach students appropriate skills(e.g., critical evaluation) to scaffold students.

Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating Wikitechnology and peer feedback into Englishwriting courses (Lin & Yang, 2011)

32 sophomore English students at Taiwan collegegeneral writing assignment

Included one class of dedicated software instruction.Instruction provided by knowledgeable (non-class)teacher

Specifically researched and then chose a goodplatform (WetPaint)

Incorporated a class about how to collaborate andgive feedback. Gave tangible examples feedbacksentence forms

InteractiveLearning

Environm

ents149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

For the sake of brevity, the researchers have used 10 of the key papers to illustrate thetypes of facilitation suggestions that the researchers have mined from our survey. Usingthese data, the researchers have created a table (see Table 1) that gives the title of thepaper and the author(s), the research aims of the paper and the specific facilitation conceptsand structures that the author(s) used and discussed. The results are based on these findingsand also included the facilitation details available in the other papers considered in thesurvey.

It should be noted that while one paper under consideration regards elementary studentsand one secondary school students, the majority of the research involves either university-level students or working professionals. The population that can benefit from collaborativewiki projects is still not fully understood. Collaborative projects require an independent andself-directed participation that is a factor of a student’s level of maturity. Storch (2011)states, “there is clearly a need to monitor students’ collaborative writing activity andperhaps even to train them before implementing collaborative writing tasks” (p. 285).This would indicate that the many factors that can diminish the successful outcomes of acollaborative wiki project might be exacerbated by the more immature nature of ayounger population.

The results in total are then used to collate these findings into a working facilitationmodel for wiki collaborative writing projects (see Table 2).

As Table 2 illustrates, there are numerous facilitation approaches and suggestions thatrange from the meta, such as breaking large projects into smaller units with staggered dead-lines (Bradley et al., 2010), to smaller, secondary suggestions such as allowing students touse screen names so that they can work/contribute/critique with anonymity (Miyazoe &Anderson, 2010). Although these fields can overlap, the researchers have presented theresults in these two terms. The meta results will assist in overall facilitation design andthe secondary results will give specific suggestions that can benefit students’ attitudestoward collaboration and positive perceptions of working in wiki collaborative projectsand thereby increase the likelihood of positive outcomes in terms of final product and indi-vidual learning outcomes.

Meta aspects of facilitation

Wiki collaborative writing projects should begin with an introduction to the concept of col-laboration. This should include a class or more that allows students to explore, through dis-cussion, the benefits and expectations of collaborative learning (Mak & Coniam, 2008). It iscrucial that students’ negative attitudes toward collaborative work are addressed so thateach student will become an engaged and valuable member of their group. Lin andKelsey (2009) suggest that before any project begins, a practice writing assignment isattempted whereby students can practice the realities of contributing and commenting onthe work. This will give an opportunity to detect problems in general terms and alsoallows the instructor to identify particular students that are experiencing problems with col-laboration or the technology that is being utilized.

Equally important is familiarizing the students with the technology that is beingused (Kessler & Bikowski, 2010). Although the vast majority of students will likelybe tech-savvy, they will not necessarily be familiar with the software used for a wikicollaborative writing project. There are a variety of platforms available to the teacher.Lin and Yang (2011) suggest that the instructor carefully research the available plat-forms and through consultation with knowledgeable users utilize the program bestsuited for their needs. They also suggest that at least one class be dedicated to exploring

150 A. Stoddart et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

Table 2. Best practices facilitation of collaborative wiki-based writing projects.

Step Timeframe Details Purpose

1. Introduce theconcept ofcollaboration

A minimum of 1 weekbefore work onassignment is to begin

Have open classdiscussion about themerits and pitfalls ofcollaborative projects.Explain theexpectations of theindividual and thegroup

Teaching the learningbenefits ofcollaboration; allowsvoicing of (andresponse to) negativeattitudes towardcollaboration beforethe project starts

2. Introducesoftware

A minimum of 1 weekbefore work onassignment is to begin

If possible utilize a goodteacher that is anexpert with thesoftware. Allow thestudents to practice in ahands-on environmentin class to determineand rectify specificproblems

Familiarity with thesoftware will diminishlater negativeperceptions of thesoftware and byextension thecollaborative project

3. Introduceassignment

The instructor can tellthe students of theassignment far inadvance of the projectstart date. However,the details of theassignment’scomponents anddeadlines should beexplained afterstudents are familiarwith the nature ofcollaboration and arecomfortable with thesoftware

Although the instructorshould start with anoverall explanation ofthe assignment andexpectations. It shouldbe broken into smallercomponents. Thesecomponents can beexplained in general atthe start of the project

This encourages studentsto participatethroughout theproject. It also makesthe project lessintimidating,cognitively easier. Italso allowsparticipants to grownand re-start betweenthe end of onesegment and the next

4. Breakassignmentinto smallerunits

Establish units, expectedoutcomes anddeadlines for each unitwithin the project

Break the assignmentinto manageable unitswith specific deadlines.Throughout theproject, the instructorshould revisit eachcomponent that hasbeen completed andoffer feedback. Eachnew component shouldbe separatelyintroduced. Thisshould includeexpectations, deadlinesand suggestions for theprocess

Makes project lessintimidating. Allowsgrowth from one unitto the next. Allows“fresh starts” aftereach unit

(Continued)

Interactive Learning Environments 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

the platform with a skilled instructor, preferably someone who is intimately familiarwith the platform and has historical knowledge of a general user’s common problemsand skill deficiencies. This class should be a hands-on training session that allows theparticipants to work within the medium and openly ask questions to the instructorand their teacher.

Table 2. Continued.

Step Timeframe Details Purpose

5. Establishfeedbackprocedures

Ongoing for duration ofproject (some weeklyclass time devoted todiscussing theproject’s structure(*not the assignment)

Should include onlinespace dedicated tocomments andsuggestions regardingthe structure of theproject, the use ofwikis, and the state ofthe collaboration. Mustalso include weeklyclass time devoted togeneral discussion ofthe projects’ structure

Allows participants tovoice concerns,suggestions forimprovement. Givesparticipants“ownership” of theproject and will dispelnegative attitudes bygiving a platform forconcerns

6. Teachmethodologyof critiques

Introduce these forms atthe start of the project.Refresher dialogues asnecessary through theproject

Teach students thatcritique of peers is avaluable tool and is infact assistance. Teachmodes of critique andgive tangible examplesof wording andstructure of in-text andex-text critique

Overcomes hesitance tocritique. Teachingappropriate forms willlessen the likelihoodof offence. Helpsstudents to recognizethat P2P suggestionscan enhance theirlearning on amultitude of levels

7. Establish agroup-to-group critiquetimetable

Establish this at the startof the project

Explain the purpose ofG2G critique and set 1or more dates for thisactivity. Explain indetail what is expectedof this critique

Extending the sphere of“teachers” to includenot just immediatepeers but peersthroughout the class

8. Provide post-projectcritiques

Preferably 1 week afterthe assignment hasbeen completed

Present students with abrief questionnaire thatcould include Likertstyle questions, butmust include open-ended questions thatstimulate the studentsto consider the manyfacets of collaborativeproject work via wikis.The questionnaireshould brief and doesnot need to be returnedto the instructor. Itmerely forms initialbasis for a classdiscussion

Both students andinstructors willrecognize the benefitsof such projects andbring this knowledgeto future collaborativeendeavors. Instructorscan gain valuableinsight into studentperceptions and areasof difficulty. This willresult in improveddesign and facilitationin future projects

152 A. Stoddart et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

As wikis generally incorporate a number of formats either within the program itself orutilize external media (email, blogs, etc.), it is important that the instructor familiarize thestudents with these adjuncts to the actual wiki content page. It is also suggested that initialparameters of usage be defined. These are likely to change as students find the most comfor-table vehicle for their purpose but will be helpful if the students have common starting point.

Secondary aspects of facilitation

There are a number of very beneficial suggestions that have been mined from the body ofwork under consideration. Many of these are very minor suggestions; yet, their incorpor-ation has the potential to significantly affect the project as a whole. For example,Bradley et al. (2010) suggest that instructors actively encourage students to input theirown declarations of deficiencies into the project. This might occur on the original pageor it might occur within a supplementary medium. Instructors must give students thepsychological metal to admit deficiencies and ask for assistance. For example, a studentmight make a contribution and then comment that they think a term used is insufficient,or ask for others to correct grammar that they believe is likely incorrect.

From this follows Miyazoe and Anderson’s (2010) usage of “screen names.” Theyfound that allowing students to contribute a critique with anonymity meant that studentswere both more inclined to make contributions and felt more comfortable critiquingothers’ work and asking for assistance within areas in which they felt deficient. Kessler(2009) suggests that students be given “diverse contexts for interaction.” As discussed pre-viously, this includes a variety of online media that allows students to comment and discussevery aspect of the project and the process of collaboration. However, it is important thatthis narrative is not relegated to only digital media. It is important that class time is dedi-cated to open discussions in which students can share their views and concerns throughoutthe length of the project. The reality of collaborative online projects assumes that some willeventually involve students who are geographically distant and not able to meet F2F. Thiscan be addressed with technology applications such as Skype that will allow students tointeract F2F and openly discuss the project.

Of course, any project is not conducted in a vacuum. It is important that teachers scaf-fold learning throughout the process. The goal of any wiki collaborative writing project isnot merely the final text produced by the students. It is the learning that takes place in anumber of spheres that occur organically throughout the process. Teachers must scaffoldthese internal aims throughout the totality of the project. For example, these mightinclude the practice of collaboration, the form and culture of editing a peer’s work, devel-oping writing skills in the genre being addressed (Elola & Oskoz, 2010), or development oflarge project organizational and delegation skills.

The numerous suggestions for an enhanced facilitation framework that have been minedfrom the papers under consideration have been collated into a general working model forfacilitation of wiki collaborative writing projects in Table 2. Here, we have attempted tosynthesize all the suggestions into a framework that is easily understood. Not all the sug-gestions are included in the table, nor will this model be appropriate for all internet-based collaborative writing projects. It is intended as a general representation of the bestpractices of facilitation currently understood in the field. It is by no means an exhaustivecompilation of all aspects of facilitation. The table of best practices of facilitation of colla-borative wiki writing projects (Table 1) encompasses four components; (1) the step thatshould be taken, (2) the timeframe of its implementation, (3) details of implementation,and finally, (4) the underlying purpose of this step.

Interactive Learning Environments 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

Discussion

Collaborative learning and in particular collaborative writing projects via wikis havebecome an area of focus across a number of fields. These include CALL (Computer-Assisted Language Learning; Diez-Bedmar & Perez-Paredes, 2012; Kessler & Bikowski,2010), TELL (Technology-Enhanced Language Learning; Lin & Yang, 2011; Wong et al.,2011), distance learning (Elola & Oskoz, 2010), blended learning (Miyazoe & Anderson,2010), SLA (Second Language Acquisition; Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Storch, 2011), ESL(English as a Second Language; Mak & Coniam, 2008; Miyazoe & Anderson, 2010),educational studies and others. The interest lies in two aspects of wikis. One is the mul-tiple benefits of collaborative learning. This draws explicitly and implicitly from thesociocultural school of thought that finds its roots in Vygotsky’s theories of learning(Chao & Lo, 2011; Ducate et al., 2011; Kessler, 2009; Kuteeva, 2011; Li et al., 2012;Lin & Yang, 2011; Storch, 2011). The other aspect is the benefits afforded to collabor-ation by digital media and the Internet (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Lin & Kelsey, 2009;Lin & Yang, 2011; Kessler, 2009; Shu & Chuang, 2012; Woo et al., 2011).

A literature review of this theme across specialties shows an obvious trajectory; whenthe new media became available scholars called for greater implementation within class-rooms while touting its potential benefits (Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Kessler, 2009; Wooet al., 2011; Xiao & Lucking, 2008), in the second phase, we have numerous studies thatseek to qualify the specific benefits through academic research. We are still in the secondstage in which the learning subtleties of collaborative wikis are still being isolated and ques-tioned. Perhaps, limited by the nature of wikis, the vast majority of studies comprised verysmall subject numbers and there is very little repeated research by others scholars.

This paper is limited to the narrative of facilitation that arises to a greater or lesser extentwithin the papers we have considered. Although we have touched upon the research thataddresses how wikis might assist in language development, Miyazoe and Anderson(2010) state quite emphatically that “it is too early to conclude, based only on the positiveresults of the current research, that online writing tools will always bear fruit in education”(p. 194). There is no doubt that collaborative project work via wikis will inform the growingreality of globalized cross-cultural student work. We simply cannot yet make many defini-tive statements regarding the specific benefits of such endeavors.

There are two very important aspects that need to be addressed in every classroom thatundertakes a collaborative wiki writing project; the concept of collaboration and the skillsrequired to navigate through the wiki software. Both of these knowledge bases can poten-tially be novel to the student. Lack of understanding of either can easily create the con-ditions for a less than optimal project in terms of student satisfaction, learning outcomesand the final project.

Conclusion

There are many variables that affect the success of a collaborative wiki writing project.These successes might include, enhanced L2 skills after working within this platform(Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Khandaker & Soh, 2010; Li et al., 2012; Lin & Yang, 2011; Xiao& Lucking, 2008), an elevated sense of involvement derived from giving and receivingpeer feedback (rather than instructor-only feedback; Bradley, Lindström, & Rystedt,2010; Davies et al., 2011; Diez-Bedmar & Perez-Paredes, 2012; Kuteeva, 2011; Lin &Yang, 2011; Xiao & Lucking, 2008), better understanding of process by witnessing peercontributions (Bradley et al., 2010; Judd et al., 2010; Kessler, 2009; Khandaker & Soh,

154 A. Stoddart et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

2010; Mak & Coniam, 2008; Pifarre & Fisher, 2011; Trentin, 2009) and perhaps even asuperior final product (Chao & Lo, 2011; Davies et al., 2011; Elola & Oskoz, 2010; Lin& Yang, 2011; Miyazoe & Anderson, 2010; Storch, 2011; Trentin, 2009). All of these,however, hinge on the facilitation process that the instructor engages. The studies thatwere reviewed for this paper reveal a number of meta and secondary ideas (metameaning overall structure, i.e. division of project into smaller units and secondarymeaning suggestions such as allowing “screen names”) that can assist in developing a suc-cessful collaborative wiki writing project. Incorporating these ideas will merely serve tocreate a learning environment in which success is possible.

To date, the body of research has not reached that level of sophistication. One of thelimitations of our research is the very small number of papers that were mined for tenetsof facilitation. Future studies that wish to further elaborate the facilitation frameworksfor wiki collaborative writing projects might want to explore a much larger range ofresearch. Another limitation of our study is that we have looked at collaborative writing pro-jects without explicitly delineating differences that might occur in L1 and L2 situations.Although the majority of the research that we considered was situated in L2 learning, col-laborative wiki writing projects are not solely used in L2 instruction. Facilitation knowledgederived from other fields might potentially also inform facilitation practices in L2 projectsand vice versa.

The researchers sincerely hope that this slight contribution to the literature of classroomcollaborative projects that are sited in a digital environment will in some measure assistresearchers and teachers in achieving heightened outcomes in terms of their students’ learn-ing, production and enjoyment of the activities. Moreover, as English for Specific Purposes(ESP) has been a popular research topic in language development with professional knowl-edge in various domains (Spence & Liu, 2013), it is also suggested that interested research-ers and practitioners should explore facilitation knowledge and practices in wiki-basedcollaborative writing of various academic domains and professional disciplines.

AcknowledgementsWe appreciate the two anonymous reviewers and the Editor, Professor Joseph Psotka, for their con-structive comments and supports. This work was supported by the National Science Council inTaiwan (NSC 101-2631-S-006-001-CC3, NSC 100-2511-S-006-001-MY2 and NSC 102-2511-S-006-005-MY3).

Notes on contributorsAndrew Stoddart teaches English at Far East University, Taiwan. He is currently completing an M. A.in Linguistics at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) in Tainan, Taiwan. He received a B.A.from Trent University in Canada in 1992. His research interests include the pedagogical implicationsof second language English teaching in light of the role of English as a global Lingua Franca and theadoption of technology in the language classroom.

Joe Yong-Yi Chan is a graduate student of the Foreign Languages & Literature Department at NCKU,Tainan, Taiwan. He received a B.A. from National Chengchi University in Taiwan. His research inter-ests include e-learning, computer mediated communication, course management system, and blendedlanguage learning.

Gi-Zen Liu received his Ph.D. degree in Instructional Systems Technology from Indiana UniversityBloomington, U.S.A. He is Director of the Foreign Language Centre and Associate Professor ofForeign Languages & Literature Department at NCKU. Dr. Liu has received six research awardsfrom the College of Liberal Arts at NCKU in 2007–2012 and another two from the National

Interactive Learning Environments 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

Science Council of Taiwan in 2012 and 2013, respectively. His research interests include instructionalsystems design, CALL, CMC, and blended learning.

ReferencesAllwardt, D. E. (2011). Teaching note writing with wikis: A cautionary tale of technology in the class-

room. Journal of Social Work Education, 47(3), 597–605. doi: 10.5175/jswe.2011.200900126Bradley, L., Lindström, B., & Rystedt, H. (2010). Rationalities of collaboration for language learning

in a wiki. ReCALL, 22(2), 247–265. doi:10.1017/S0958344010000108Chao, Y. C. J., & Lo, H. C. (2011). Students’ perceptions of Wiki-based collaborative writing for lear-

ners of English as a foreign language. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 395–411. doi:10.1080/10494820903298662

Chen, W. C., Shih, Y. C. D., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Task design and its induced learning effects in across-institutional blog-mediated telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning.doi:10.1080/09588221.2013.818557

Chiu, L. L., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Effects of printed, pocket electronic, and online Dictionaries on highschool students’ English vocabulary retention. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher.doi:10.1007/s40299–013–0065–1

Davies, A., Pantzopoulos, K., & Gray, K. (2011). Emphasising assessment ‘as’ learning by assessingwiki writing assignments collaboratively and publicly online. Australasian Journal of EducationalTechnology, 27(5), 798–812. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/davies.html

Diez-Bedmar, M. B., & Perez-Paredes, P. (2012). The types and effects of peer native speakers’ feed-back on CMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 62–90. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2012/diezbedmarperezparedes.pdf

Ducate, L. C., Anderson, L. L., & Moreno, N. (2011). Wading Through the World of Wikis: AnAnalysis of Three Wiki Projects. Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 495–524. doi: 10.1111/j.1944–9720.2011.01144.x

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conven-tions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2010/elolaoskoz.pdf

Judd, T., Kennedy, G., & Cropper, S. (2010). Using wikis for collaborative learning: Assessing col-laboration through contribution. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3),341–354. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/judd.html

Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. LanguageLearning & Technology, 13(1), 79–95. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/kessler.pdf

Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in com-puter mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. ComputerAssisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41–58. doi: 10.1080/09588220903467335

Khandaker, N., & Soh, L. K. (2010). ClassroomWiki: A CollaborativeWiki for Instructional Use withmultiagent group formation. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(3), 190–202. doi:10.1109/tlt.2009.50

Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing Changing the writer-reader relationship. English forSpecific Purposes, 30(1), 44–57. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2010.04.007

Li, X. X., Chu, S. K. W., Ki, W. W., & Woo, M. (2012). Using a wiki-based collaborative processwriting pedagogy to facilitate collaborative writing among Chinese primary school students.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 159–181. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/li.html

Lin, H., & Kelsey, K. D. (2009). Building a networked environment in wikis: The evolving phases ofcollaborative learning in a wikibook project. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(2),145–169. doi: 10.2190/EC.40.2.a

Lin,W.C.,&Yang, S.C. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of integratingWiki technology and peerfeedback into English writing courses. English Teaching-Practice and Critique, 10(2), 88–103.Retrieved from http://edlinked.soe.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2011v10n2dial1.pdf

Liu, G. Z. (2008). Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where are the new blue oceans?British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 738–747.

Liu, G. Z. (2011). The blended language learning course in Taiwan: Issues & challenges of instruc-tional design. In J. Macalister & I. S. P. Nation (Eds.), Case studies in language curriculum

156 A. Stoddart et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016

design: Concepts and approaches in action around the world (pp. 82–100). New York, NY:Routledge.

Liu, G. Z., & Hwang, G. J. (2010). A key step to understanding paradigm shifts in e-learning: Towardscontext-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), E1–E9.

Liu, G. Z., Liu, Z. H., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). Developing multi-dimensional evaluation criteria forEnglish learning websites with university students and professors. Computers & Education, 56(1), 65–79.

Liu, G. Z., Lo, H. Y., & Wang, H. C. (2013). Design and usability testing of a learning and plagiarismavoidance tutorial system for paraphrasing and citing in English: A case study. Computers &Education, 69, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.011

Liu, G. Z., Wu, N. W., & Chen, Y. W. (2013). Identifying emerging trends for implementing learningtechnology in special education: A state-of-the-art review of selected articles published in 2008–2012. Research in Developmental Disabilities. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.007

Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondaryschool students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437–455. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.004

Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writingSimultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting.System, 38(2), 185–199. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2010.03.006

Nuutinen, J., Sutinen, E., Botha, A., & Kommers, P. (2010). From mindtools to social mindtools:Collaborative writing with Woven Stories. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5),753–775. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–8535.2009.00973.x

Pifarre, M., & Fisher, R. (2011). Breaking up the writing process: how wikis can support understand-ing the composition and revision strategies of young writers. Language and Education, 25(5),451–466. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2011.585240

Shu, W., & Chuang, Y. H. (2012). Wikis as an effective group writing tool: a study in Taiwan. OnlineInformation Review, 36(1), 89–103. doi: 10.1108/14684521211206980

Spence, P., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Engineering English and the high-tech industry: A case study of anEnglish needs analysis of process integration engineers at a semiconductor manufacturingcompany in Taiwan. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 97–109.

Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288. doi: 10.1017/s0267190511000079

Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), 43–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1365–2729.2008.00276.x

Weaver, D., Viper, S., Latter, J., & McIntosh, P. C. (2010). Off campus students’ experiences colla-borating online, using wikis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 847–860.Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/weaver.html

Wheeler, S., & Wheeler, D. (2009). Using wikis to promote quality learning in teacher training.Learning Media and Technology, 34(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1080/17439880902759851

Wong, L. H., Chen, W. L., Chai, C. S., Chin, C. K., & Gao, P. (2011). A blended collaborative writingapproach for Chinese L2 primary school students. Australasian Journal of EducationalTechnology, 27(7), 1208–1226. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/wong-lh.html

Woo, M., Chu, S., Ho, A., & Li, X. X. (2011). Using a wiki to scaffold primary-school students’ col-laborative writing. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 43–54. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/14_1/5.pdf

Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performanceand satisfaction within a Wiki environment. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 186–193.doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.005

Interactive Learning Environments 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nat

iona

l Che

ng K

ung

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

0:30

15

Mar

ch 2

016