educational technology & society - university of hong...

Cited As: Chu, S.K.W., Siu, F.L.C., Liang, M., Capio, C.M. & Wu, W.W.Y. (in press). Users’ experiences and perceptions on using two wiki platforms for collaborative learning and knowledge management. Online Information Review.

USERS’ EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS ON USING TWO WIKI PLATFORMS FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Samuel Kai Wah Chu*, Felix L.C. Siu*, Michael Liang†, Catherine M. Capio#, Wendy W.Y. Wu**Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong, HKSAR† WiderWorld Company Ltd.# Institute of Human Performance, the University of Hong Kong, HKSAR

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to examine users’ experiences and perceptions associated with the use of two wiki variants in the context of collaborative learning and knowledge management in higher education.

Methodology - Participants included two groups of postgraduate students from a university in Hong Kong who used MediaWiki (n = 21) and TWiki (n = 16) in completing course requirements. Using a multiple case study approach and a mixed methods research design, data logs on the wiki platforms were downloaded and the contents were analyzed. Students’ perceptions were examined through a survey.

Findings - Findings indicate that both wikis were regarded as suitable tools for group projects, and that they improved group collaboration and work quality. Both wikis were also viewed as enabling tools for knowledge construction and sharing.

Implications - This study provides insights that may inform the decisions of educators who are considering the use of wiki in their courses as a platform to enhance collaborative learning and knowledge management.

Originality/value - Previous research has shown that wikis can be effectively used in education. However, there are a number of wiki variants and it may be difficult to identify which variant might be the best choice. There is a dearth of research comparing the effectiveness of different types of wikis. This study compares two wiki variants on a number of outcomes which may provide some insights to teachers who are in the process of selecting an appropriate wiki for teaching and learning.

Keywords: Wiki, collaborative learning, knowledge management, knowledge sharing

1/tt/file_convert/5aebfb817f8b9ac3618fe471/document.doc 5/8/2023 1:39:47 AM

1. Introduction

From the time that Ward Cunningham developed the first wiki in 1994 as the Portland Pattern Repository for a small community of software engineers, wikis have been taken up across diverse disciplines, including in businesses and educational settings, and in community projects (Klobas, 2006). In the commercial settings, wikis have been deployed as organization knowledge databases or project management tools, contributing to increased efficiency (Paquet, 2006). Wiki’s collaborative features make it easy for users to contribute to the knowledge base. Hence, a successful wiki can serve as a platform to shape an organization into one which may be called a knowledge-creating company (Nonaka, 1991). Adapting this concept to an educational setting, students using wiki tools could effectively establish a knowledge-creating platform that stirs brainstorming activities, enhances project outcomes, and stimulates individual learning.

Constructivism emphasizes individual learners’ role in constructing meaning, instead of a mechanical transmission of content from teacher to student (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). Learners “are required to examine thinking and learning processes; collect, record, and analyze data; formulate and test hypotheses; reflect on previous understanding; and construct their own meaning” (Crotty, 1994: 31). This approach engages learners so that constructed knowledge are usable in new and different situations (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell & Haag, 1995). Furthermore, the constructivist approach has been found to impact curricula across different levels worldwide, and has led to a gradual shift from exam-based to project-based learning (Chu et al., 2008). Project-based learning (PjBL) allows students to deal with problems in order to master facts and key concepts in a subject matter, rather than learning and acquiring concepts in a rote fashion (Norman & Schmidt, 1992).

Web 2.0 tools have been suggested to form a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment that help students adapt better from rote learning to active learning (Chu, Chan & Tiwari, 2012). In particular, wikis have been proposed to be useful due to is information sharing and straightforward collaboration features that make them particularly well-suited for promoting cooperative learning environments (Schaffert, et al., 2006). Hazari et al. (2009) clarified that collaborative learning could take place via the wiki platform, as it provides an environment where team members can access shared resources, create task lists, and contribute individual analyses to co-construct a project. One form of collaborative activity that has been regarded to facilitate the development of a shared understanding of concepts is knowledge construction (Lipponen, 2002). Logically, the outcomes of collaborative knowledge construction would be affected by the quality of student interaction and the tools they use (Veerman, & Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001).

Wikis, as a tool, are loaded with functionalities that could influence the effectiveness of learning experiences (Bower, Woo, Roberts, & Watters, 2006). Subtle differences in technology could affect the socio-educational environment (Gunawardena & McIsaac, 2004), thus highlighting the importance of positive user experiences and utilities that facilitate effective collaboration and knowledge management. Technical comparisons of various wiki variations are available (e.g., Tonkin, 2005). However, there is a dearth of research on empirical comparisons of wiki variants in higher education (Elgort et al., 2008).

This research contributes to the growing literature on the use of wikis in higher education by comparing the use of two comprehensive and popular wikis – TWiki and MediaWiki - in postgraduate students’ group project work at a university in Hong Kong. As wikis are purported to be tools that were designed to facilitate collaborative knowledge construction, this study explored students’ experiences of using TWiki and MediaWiki, and examined users’ perceptions on the effectiveness of these wiki variants on collaboration and knowledge management.

/tt/file_convert/5aebfb817f8b9ac3618fe471/document.doc 5/8/2023 1:39:47 AM 2

2. Literature Review

2.1 Wiki as a knowledge management tool

Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) work on the Socialization Externalization Combination Internalization (SECI) model for knowledge creation laid the foundation for research on knowledge management (KM) in education (e.g. Edge, 2005). Knowledge creation was explained as a spiraling process of interactions between explicit and tacit knowledge in a four-stage knowledge conversion process: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). It has been suggested that such interactions between explicit and tacit knowledge may be facilitated by wiki platforms, which provide a knowledge repository for building communities of practice as apparent in the case of the education sector (Sheehy, 2008). In corporate organizations, wikis have been utilized in highly collaborative tasks such as project management and co-creation of documents, policies, procedures, and databases (Tay, 2009). Molyneaux and Brumley (2007) noted that wikis facilitate project management through its features that allow easy accessibility, and the ability to track timelines and tasks.

Wiki, as a technology, has been designed as a collaborative environment (Engstrom & Jewett, 2005). The utilities of wiki allow multiple authors to jointly edit pages to produce a collaboratively authored resource, thus suggesting a capability to facilitate the formation of collective intelligence. Wiki’s What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get (WYSIWYG) content editor enables quick and easy web editing. Thus the knowledge base could be updated frequently as users are able to contribute to a document’s content, perform multiple editing, and take part in a work in progress (Lamb, 2004). Wiki pages are organized by content, and users are able to structure their posted information, retrieve earlier versions, and trace project progress (Lamb, 2004; Raman et al., 2005). In terms of security, the “access right control” feature allows users to restrict write or read access at the page level or site level conveniently. In other words, sensitive information could be uploaded to the wiki to be shared with a limited audience while less sensitive information could be shared with the public. Pages could also be locked from editing, ensuring data accuracy.

Given these features, a wiki could provide a social interaction platform in which knowledge is created and exchanged at low costs (Stvilia et al., 2008). Users could easily share knowledge due to the ease of web publishing. At the same time, knowledge capture could also occur when the user turns tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge through web publishing. Knowledge transfer could happen when a knowledge-seeking user learns from the published information. Given this collective intelligence and knowledge exchange among the community members, knowledge creation could happen as a result of transformative learning. This process has been observed in case studies of business organizations that have utilized wikis as active repositories of knowledge and expertise (Tay, 2009). It has been shown that a wiki could provide the platform for capturing the tacit knowledge and technical know-how of an organization’s member.

An emerging shift in KM approaches appears to be related to the use of online platforms like wiki. While the more traditional KM strategy utilizes a centralized knowledge repository, the use of wiki has directed KM towards a more interactive and conversational approach (Lee & Lan, 2007). Knowledge has ceased from being dominated by domain experts, and has become shared by peers who share their capabilities. This shift highlights the collaborative nature that wiki lends to KM strategies.

2.2 Wiki in Education

With the perceived visibility of their published work to an infinitely large online audience, wiki contributors have been found to put serious efforts in constructing knowledge (Hazari et al., 2009; Forte, 2006). Forte and Bruckman (2007) interviewed regular wiki contributors, and found that they spent tremendous effort in searching accurate facts, minimize errors, and present information without bias. It also appears that wiki contributors become motivated to engage in inquiry learning (Forte & Bruckman, 2006). Thus, it has been suggested that educators may use wikis to support coursework, and potentially nurture an environment, which promotes students’ critical inquiry. The motivation that has been found among wiki contributors could potentially translate as a positive factor influencing students’ academic success (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010).


It has also been suggested, on the basis of their functionalities, that wikis have the potential to promote collaborative learning (Hsu, 2007; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). A number of studies have demonstrated empirical evidence that supports such utility of wikis in education (Chu, Cheung, Ma, & Leung, 2008; Mak & Coniam, 2008; Nicol, Littlejohn, & Grierson, 2005). For instance, wikis have been found to be useful for students who were engaged in collaborative tasks (Bower, Woo, Roberts & Watters, 2006). Students’ effective engagement in group project implementation were also found to benefit from the use of wikis (Augar, Raitman & Zhou, 2004; Fountain, 2007). It appears that the use of wikis in education is hinged on their utility as a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment.

Theoretically, the use of wikis as a CSCL environment has been grounded in constructivism (e.g., Coyle, 2007; Larusson & Alterman, 2009; Woo, Chu, Ho, & Li, 2011). Constructivist teaching approaches focus on facilitating active processing and interpretation of information by students (Ally, 2008). Collaborative learning has been known to be a constructivist approach (Dillenbourg & Schneider, 1995), such that interactions among students have been shown to enhance learning through exposure to alternative perspectives (Brett & Nagra, 2005). Since collaborative learning places great emphasis on the extent of the exchanges that occur among students in a given environment (Dillenbourg & Schneider, 1995), the discussion that occurs during task engagement in a platform such as wiki is important to consider (Pressley & McCormick, 2006).

It is not surprising that CSCL environments would also encounter problems in facilitating the desired student interactions in a collaborative learning approach (Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, & Beers, 2004). In one study that utilized wiki in an undergraduate information systems module, little impact on student engagement was found because students chose not to post information on the wiki (Cole, 2009). Such problem was likely associated with insufficient integration of the wiki into the teaching format of the course. It has been suggested such problems could be addressed by evaluating learning environments in terms of the pedagogical and social factors that facilitate collaborative activities (Kirschner, et al., 2004).

2.2 Wiki variants

TWiki, an enterprise wiki tool used as a project development space or a knowledge base, has been considered a collaborative tool for the development of educational papers and technical projects (Raygan & Green, 2002). As wikis have been reported to be gaining ground in higher education (Elgort et al., 2008), a recent study by Chu (2008) used TWiki in group project work of undergraduate students. A general improvement in the quality of group project output was perceived by students and attributed to enhanced collaboration brought about by TWiki.

MediaWiki is another wiki variant that has gained its reputation and popularity as the software used by Wikipedia. In higher education context, MediaWiki has been used to enhance social interaction in assignments (Augar et al., 2004), and in developing an encyclopedia on new media technologies among undergraduate students (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005). Academic interest in facilitating academic collaboration on MediaWiki has been growing (e.g. Foley & Chang, 2006). While both wiki variants appear to offer educators a free and open source collaborative platform, technical differences are evident and are summarized in Table 1. While the differences in terms of language, data storage and interface are straightforward; users’ experiences remain unexplored as far as usefulness in an education context is concerned.

Table 1 Technical comparison of Twiki and MediaWiki.

Twiki MediaWikiFree and Open Source Yes YesLanguage Perl PHPData Storage File-based Database such as MySQLInterface language 19 140Source: WikiMatrix – compare them all. Retrieved from http://www.wikimatrix.org/compare/TWiki+MediaWiki+Confluence+TracWiki


2.4 Research Gap

Wikis have been suggested to be effective online platforms for collaboration and knowledge management, and its application in education appears to enhance student learning. The number of wiki variants is likely to continue growing, and interested educators may find it difficult to identify which variant might be the best choice for a specific purpose. While technical specifications are readily comparable, the subtle differences when wikis are utilized in education need to be examined closer. This is an empirical study that compares the perceived effectiveness of two different wiki variants in facilitating collaborative learning and knowledge management. Comparison of learning experiences in collaboration, knowledge sharing, and knowledge creation activities with TWiki and MediaWiki in a masters level of study at a university in Hong Kong was done. The findings of this study contribute towards addressing the current gap in research, thereby providing evidence for the utility of wikis as a tool for collaborative learning and knowledge management. Moreover, the findings of this study contribute towards understanding wiki as an online learning environment through the perceptions of student users.

3. Research Method

This study adopted a mixed-methods research design, using both quantitative and qualitative methods for data analysis. All the procedures were approved by the ethics review board of the university, and informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

3.1 Research Questions

This study aimed to examine the students’ learning experiences with wiki, and compare their perceptions on the effectiveness of TWiki and MediaWiki for collaborative learning and knowledge management. The following research questions were addressed:1) What are some of the similarities and differences in learning experiences when using TWiki and MediaWiki? 2) How effective are TWiki and MediaWiki for collaborative learning? 3) How effective are TWiki and MediaWiki as knowledge management tools? 4) How do TWiki and MediaWiki compare with popular word processing tools in collaborative learning?

3.2 Participants

Research participants included 21 postgraduate students of Master of Science in Library and Information Management (MScLIM), who were enrolled in the Information Behavior (IB) course, and 16 postgraduate students for the Master of Science in Information Technology in Education (MScITE), who were enrolled in the course Designing Shared Virtual Environments for Learning (DSVEL). All students were part-time students with full-time employment.

3.3 Procedures

Students in the IB course were engaged in a collaborative group project consisting of a small-scale research study on information-seeking behaviour of a specific user group. Their research report was co-constructed using TWiki, and consisted of submission in four phases: (1) research proposal with relevant literature, (2) draft of the study design, (3) preliminary results, and (4) final report that included a discussion of previous studies in the area of interest. Students enrolled in DSVEL were assigned a group project on designing a shared virtual environment for supporting specific learning goals. MediaWiki was used to facilitate discussion among group members throughout different stages of the project (e.g. brainstorming design ideas, tackling technical issues, organizing work division, etc.), Also, MediaWiki served as a platform to co-construct a 2000-word design documentation with sections such as the teaching and learning strategies employed, the affordances for the learning design, the choice of technology platform, the design overview, reflections, etc.

The course lecturers designed wiki templates for the students’ projects which could be modified by students according to their needs. The TWiki workspace consisted of three parts, namely “Progress,” “Discussion,” and “Report.” “Progress” was a page created for students to write their draft reports, whereas the “Report” page was reserved for the final reports. Students were free to discuss any issues relating to their projects on the “Discussion” page. The templates for “Progress” and “Report” were initially identical, which the students then


modified in accordance with the design of their group project (see Figure 1).The MediaWiki platform, on the other hand, consisted of only “Progress” and “Discussion” (see Figure 2). The lecturer considered that students could do all their work in “Progress” page until completion, instead of having the work spread out in two different pages.

Figure 1. TWiki’s templates for “group progress”/ “group discussion” / “group report”

Figure 2. MediaWiki’s templates for “group progress”/“group discussion” respectively

3.4 Evaluation and Data Analysis

To evaluate the individual collaborative contributions, wiki data logs of both TWiki and MediaWiki were retrieved after course completion. Contents of the Discussion pages were captured and the content were analyzed


to examine students’ interactions on the online platform. Each entry by one student, with a specific time and date stamp was considered one unit of analysis. The qualitative analysis of students’ online data has been known to reflect the different learning processes of students (Chu, Chan & Tiwari, 2012), which we expected to occur in this study. Qualitative analysis was done using NVivo 7.0, where each unit of analysis was coded into categories that were identified through an iterative top-down and bottom-up process of theme identification and re-coding, which is commonly adopted in cognitive studies (Lee, Chan & van Aalst, 2006). External audit was done to verify the accuracy of the interpretations by having two research assistants perform the content analysis independently, and discuss to come up with a consensus on the themes (Creswell, 2008).

Questionnaires (see appendix for the instrument) were administered to examine participants’ perceptions on the effectiveness of wiki tools in collaborative work and knowledge management. The questionnaire included close-ended questions on a 5-point Likert scale. Quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS (windows version 16.0). For each survey question requiring ratings, one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and histogram were used to test the normality of students’ ratings. Since the results showed that the normality of data was questionable (p<0.05 in Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and skewed histograms), non-parametric tests were then used. Ratings in the survey questions were compared between students using TWiki and those using MediaWiki with the Mann-Whitney test, with alpha level set at p<0.05.

A number of open-ended questions were used to further explore participants’ opinions on the use of TWiki and MediaWiki. Responses to the open-ended questions were also analyzed using NVivo 7.0 to determine relevant themes from the participants’ responses.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 TWiki and MediaWiki as tools for collaboration

The perceived effectiveness of TWiki and MediaWiki in the collaborative group projects was examined in terms of performance of collaborative activities, quality of group work output, ease of use, enjoyment, and suitability for the task. Table 2 summarizes the comparison of the responses of each group of students. The results indicated that the ratings were above the mid-point for all the criteria. The highest ratings were observed for the item on the suitability of TWiki (M=3.60, SD=.81) and MediaWiki (M=3.94, SD=.77) for group project work. One student commented that wiki improved their work efficiency and learning atmosphere, because “amendments can be made easily” and “discussion is no longer restrained by time and place” (TWiki user 1 [T1]).

These current findings build on those of earlier studies that have shown the usefulness of wiki in group project implementation and management (Augar et al., 2004; Chu & Kennedy, 2011; Fountain, 2007). Specifically, this current study illustrates that wiki is suitable for collaborative group work because it broadens the students’ options for contributing towards their work output. The accessibility that was reported by users highlights one of the advantages of online technologies – breaking temporal and geographical barriers. Essentially, the students’ ability to work on their projects at their own space and time was perceived as contributory to their efficiency. A closer look at the revision logs of the wiki pages shows that students made contributions to the wiki pages throughout the day. This further illustrates that the continuous accessibility of the online platform allowed the users to contribute ideas at any time of the day, thereby extending collaborations beyond the bounds of a face-to-face meeting.

Students generally found both wiki tools easy to use in their group projects. However, MediaWiki was perceived as easier to use (M=3.75, SD=.93) compared to TWiki (M=3.00, SD=1.08). Students also perceived MediaWiki as more enjoyable (M=3.63, SD=.96) compared to TWiki (M=2.90, SD=1.02). One student mentioned, “MediaWiki eliminated formatting problems that are normally encountered when using word processors” (MediaWiki user 2 [M2]). On the other hand, one TWiki user (T3) pointed out that formatting work in TWiki was time-consuming, while another student (T19) reported difficulties when posting materials on TWiki. It appears that there is substantial room for TWiki to improve in terms of interface usability. Overall, MediaWiki was given higher ratings by its users, evidently since users perceived it to be easy and enjoyable to use, and suitable for collaborative activities as well.


A previous implementation of wiki in education was reported to be unsuccessful because students chose not to use the online platform for information and knowledge building (Cole, 2009). Kirschner et al. (2004) has emphasized the importance of educational factors in using a new learning environment. Considering that wiki is a relatively new tool for students, its usability is important to consider. In the case of this current study, students were able to identify the suitability of the MediaWiki variant for students whose information technology skills are not necessarily at sophisticated levels.

Table 2 Students’ perceived effectiveness of TWiki and MediaWiki for collaborative group project

Effectiveness Component TWiki (n = 20)Mean; Standard Deviation

MediaWiki (n= 16)Mean; Standard Deviation

Sig.Mann-Whitney

Improved collaborative activitiesa 3.23; 1.057 3.63; 0.806 0.328Improved quality of group reporta 3.23; 1.129 3.20; 0.775 0.710Ease of useb 3.00; 1.076 3.75; 0.931 0.050#

Enjoymenta 2.90; 1.021 3.63; 0.957 0.036*Suitabilitya 3.60; 0.805 3.94; 0.772 0.147Note:a Respondents answered according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”.b Respondents answered according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “very difficult” and 5 as “very easy”. *p<0.05: statistically significant#p=0.05: marginally significant

4.2 TWiki and MediaWiki as tools for Knowledge Management

Students rated two aspects of knowledge management: knowledge creation and knowledge sharing. TWiki and MediaWiki were rated positively for both aspects of knowledge management with ratings ranging from 3.5 to 4.3 (see Table 3). In this study, it appears that users perceive wiki tools to be useful in enhancing their abilities for knowledge management activities. Although MediaWiki received higher ratings than TWiki on both aspects, the differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05).

Table 3 Students’ ratings on TWiki and MediaWiki as a knowledge management tool.

Knowledge Management Aspect

TWiki (n = 20)Mean; Standard Deviation

MediaWiki (n= 16)Mean; Standard Deviation

Sig.Mann-Whitney

Knowledge creationc 3.45; 4.00 3.69; 4.00 0.626Knowledge sharingc 3.92; 4.00 4.31; 4.00 0.223Note: a Respondents answered according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”.b Respondents answered according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “very difficult” and 5 as “very easy”. *p<0.05: statistically significant/ #p=0.05: close to the confidence level of statistical significance

Comparing students’ ratings on knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, both groups of users gave significantly lower ratings to the potential for these technologies to enable knowledge creation compared to knowledge sharing (p<0.001 for TWiki, and p=0.009 for MediaWiki). This indicates that from the students’ perspective, wikis could work more effectively in providing a platform for knowledge sharing, rather than for knowledge creation. As researchers pointed out, wikis were most useful as tools to manage and update existing knowledge, but they were of limited use in collaboratively creating new knowledge (Raman et al. 2005). Nevertheless, interviews showed that both wiki platforms were still viewed to be useful for both KM aspects. A user (T1) noted that TWiki allowed effective communication, which assisted the interaction among group members, resulting in improvement of work output. One MediaWiki user (M8) mentioned “MediaWiki is a constructivist learning tool that provides a good platform for students to construct knowledge and share freely”.

Most students perceived wiki’s history tracking function as a key feature that contributed to its suitability for group collaboration. The ability to track older versions of the collaborative work output has been described as


one that offers a knowledge management function (Chu, 2008). As group project work evolves, collaborators might need to refer to previous ideas and constructed knowledge. Besides being relevant for checking their work progress, this feature provides an online repository of previously shared knowledge which students could access for retrieval. Coupled with the potential to facilitate collaborative work, wikis appear to be tools that are consistent with a more interactive and conversational KM approach (Lee & Lan, 2007).

4.3 Active learning on the discussion platform

It would be expected that evidence of collaborative learning could be found in the exchanges that occur among students in a learning environment (Dillenbourg & Schneider, 1995), and such was found in the discussion pages of the TWiki and MediaWiki platforms. Contents of these discussion pages indicate that students engaged in active learning processes. Table 4 summarizes the themes that were generated from the discussion contents. It appears that the primary purpose for which the students used the discussion pages on wiki was for project management, which generated the most number of references for both platforms. In commercial settings, wikis have been deployed as project management tools (Paquet, 2006). It appears that in the educational setting, learners benefit from the utilities afforded by wikis for project management.

Table 4 Themes generated from the contents of the discussion pages of student groups on Twiki and MediaWiki.

Themes DefinitionNo. of

References a

(MediaWiki)

No. of References

(TWiki)Sample

Project management details

Details of the project implementation, such as meeting schedules, individual assignments, deadlines, and plan of activities.

11 12 Should we have a group meeting next week to discuss the questionnaire results? - T2 b

Writing revisions

Revisions of some components of the students' final report.

2 6 I have also prepared the introduction. please feel free to let me know if there is any amendment. - M13 c

Information sharing

Links to sources of information that may or may not be related to the specific group project.

6 8 The following are the databases which I found useful towards our project. ISI Web of Science … - T2

Project proposal Discussion of the project proposal, which included possible study questions, proposed methods, other pragmatic considerations.

5 10 Our study is mainly concern on their information seeking behaviour for completing their assignments OR in their daily searching on the Internet, such as what kind of searching tools, search engines and databases they will use. - T4

Technical concerns on wiki use

Questions on the technical aspects of using wiki, which offer evidence of difficulties with using the platform.

2 3 I have an experience like waiting for another one to log-out/stop editing while I really need to edit something. In fact, sometimes what the system tells us may not be the truth, like when both of you are not on-line, it may still read "(one group member) is editing". - T1

Note:a A reference pertains to an entry written by a user with a specific time/date stamp in the Discussion pages.b T2 is an abbreviation of the code for a participant, where T stands for TWiki user, and 2 is the participant number.b M13 is an abbreviation of the code for a participant, where M stands for MediaWiki user, and 13 is the participant number.

It was also evident that students engaged in information exchange using wikis by posting links to sources of information that were deemed relevant to their project. Moreover, the collaborative process was evident in wiki contents that illustrated exchange of ideas about possible topic choices and negotiation on the decision relevant


to the project (i.e., topic, methods, and strategies). Individual ideas were exchanged, and concepts were verified through further reading and discussion with peers. This supports the proposition that wikis could be utilized as tools for constructivist learning because it appears that interactions that enhance learning through exposure to alternative perspectives (Brett & Nagra, 2005) were facilitated.

4.4 TWiki and MediaWiki in future use

Users also reported whether they would recommend TWiki or MediaWiki for students’ group project work in the future (see Figure 3). For TWiki users, 65% (13 out of 20 respondents) recommended using TWiki in future course design, among which one student (T10) suggested using TWiki and the word processor jointly as “the editing functions of TWiki are not powerful”. The other 20% (4 out of 20) of participants considered using TWiki depending on whether enough training would be provided and on the students’ familiarity with the tool. The remaining 15% (3 out of 20) did not recommend using TWiki in future course design due to the difficulties that were found to be associated with it, and the time consumed in learning the new tool. In contrast, MediaWiki was recommended for future use in course work by 94% (15 out of 16) of the respondents. The remaining one user noted that future use of MediaWiki would depend on the students’ choice.

Figure 3. Responses on using TWiki and MediaWiki in future course design

The participants also reported their perceptions on the usefulness of TWiki and MediaWiki beyond conducting course group projects (see Figure 4). For TWiki users, 40% (8 out of 20) would continue to use TWiki in the future, among which three of them would only use it for work but not for personal purposes. The other 30% (6 out of 20) believed that the use of TWiki in the future depends on other factors such as their group members’ IT knowledge and job nature. The remaining 30% (6 out of 20) believed that they would not use TWiki in the future. Some complaints on TWiki were that the interface was “totally not user-friendly” (T3) and users were not familiar with the platform (T7). Some users remarked that TWiki was not widely used in the workplace and it would be difficult to encourage colleagues to use TWiki (T1, T2, T9). For MediaWiki users, 40% (6 out of 20) would continue to use MediaWiki in the future, while 33% (5 out of 15) believed that the use of MediaWiki in the future depends on job nature and group size. As students pointed out, MediaWiki was more suitable for small group projects but might not suit the needs of large groups due to the multiple-input problem (M7, M11). The remaining 27% (4 out of 15) thought that they would not use MediaWiki due to the high level of IT skills required for setup and maintenance.


It may be important to note that students’ perceptions could have been influenced by the IT skills that they possessed. This echoes the observations of other studies that new users of wikis demand major support on functionalities (Foley & Chang, 2006). As such, interface design and amount of required guidance would have relevant implications on the development of wiki platforms for collaborative learning. Considering the constructivist basis of using wikis in education, these current findings point to the importance of scaffolding. A key concept in constructivist approach, scaffolding refers to the provision of support to guide students towards new learning (Moran, 2007). Scaffolds could take the form of demonstrations, and in this current study could address the technical aspects of using wiki platforms. Given sufficient scaffolding, students may focus their cognitive resources towards learning (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007), and potentially appreciate the usefulness of wikis beyond their specific group project.

Figure 4. Responses on planning to use TWiki and MediaWiki for work and/or personal use

4.5 Comparison of wikis with a word processor

Students gave comments on the positive and negative aspects of using wikis compared to a typical word processing software. As shown in Table 5, it appears that there were more positive comments on the use of wiki than the use of word processor. The two themes that were found most common in the positive comments is that both wiki variants were found to facilitate collaborative group work and sharing of information and knowledge. Students also commented that wiki allowed greater interaction among group members. On the other hand, the main positive comment about word processors referred to the users’ familiarity with the software. In contrast, students noted that the difficulty in formatting and using unfamiliar wiki tools are key problems with using the online platforms. Related to this, a number of TWiki users commented that using this platform was time-consuming. It makes sense that word processors would work well for individual tasks considering the users’ higher familiarity and greater experiences with it, but these did not offer means of collaborative group work activities. With a typical word processing software, modifications made by group members in the group project documents were difficult to track because monitoring was heavily dependent on email exchange.


Table 5 Comments given by TWiki / MediaWiki users about wiki software and the word processor

Wiki Tool MS WordPositive Comments

TWiki Facilitating collaborative group work (10) [50%] Higher familiarity (6) [30%] Facilitating knowledge sharing (10) [50%] Working individually according to one’s Facilitating group communication (8) [40%] own schedule (1) [5%] Keeping track of others’ working progress (7) [35%] Allowing easier facilitation of work (1) [5%] Working anywhere at any time (7) [35%] High security of documents (1) [5%] Keeping track of different versions (6) [30%] Same functions (1) [5%] Referring to and learning from other groups (6) [30%] User-friendly interface (1) [5%]

MediaWiki Facilitating collaborative group work (11) [69%] Higher familiarity (2) [13%] Facilitating knowledge sharing (10) [63%] User-friendly interface (1) [6%] Referring to and learning from others (7) [44%] Easy to print (1) [6%] Facilitating group communication (5) [31%] Easy to use (5) [31%] Working anywhere at any time (5) [31%] Keeping track of different versions (5) [31%] Encouraging participation (4) [25%] Keeping track of others’ working progress (2) [13%]

Negative CommentsTWiki Difficulty in formatting (13) [65%] Overdependence on sending documents by

emails (4) [20%] Technical problems, e.g. server problem (7) [35%] Unfamiliar to use (5) [25%] Difficult to identify others’ contribution (3)

[15%] Time consuming to learn editing tools (4) [20%] Insufficient training provided (3) [15%] Only allows individual work (1) [5%] Difficulty in using (3) [15%] Cannot compare with older version (1) [5%] Insufficient functions compared to alternatives (2) [10%] Not user-friendly (2) [10%]

MediaWiki Unfamiliar to use (5) [31%] Only allow individual work (6) [38%] Server and network problems (4) [25%] Overdependence on sending documents by

emails (2) [13%] Difficult in using (3) [19%] Insufficient guidance provided (2) [13%] Difficulty in formatting (1) [6%] Require login (2) [13%] Time consuming to combine work (1) [6%] Multiple inputs problem (2) [13%] Low security of documents (2) [13%]

Note: Responses collected from 20 TWiki users and 16 MediaWiki users to the question: “When preparing a report for a group project in the past, you would in general use a word processor, e.g. MS Word. How would you compare the two ways of creating a group report?”

Between the two wiki variants, comments appeared to be generally more favorable for MediaWiki than TWiki. Greater difficulties related to formatting and technical problems were reported by students who used TWiki . Formatting such as inserting diagrams, adjusting spacing, and alignment turned out to be complex tasks on TWiki. For instance, students noted that graphic files needed to be uploaded before they could be linked to the appropriate section. In contrast, students did not complain about MediaWiki as much, and a number of students even commented that it was easier to use than the word processor (31% of users). Nevertheless, a number of students also noted a technical problem related to losing entries when doing multiple inputs in MediWiki. As such, MediaWiki users considered that this platform may be optimal only when the group size is small. For both wiki variants, a number of users gave a negative comment that there was insufficient training and guidance provided by the course lecturers. This may have hindered the efficient use of wikis because students were unfamiliar with the new software.

5. Limitations

This study was conducted alongside the implementation of postgraduate courses in a university. While the findings are obtained through a real-world implementation, a number of limitations are also identified. The sample size is relatively small (21 TWiki and 16 MediaWiki users) since it was dependent on the course enrollment. This limits the generalizability of findings. Users’ perceptions on the effectiveness of using the two


types of wikis have shown distinct differences, but we might consider confounding factors that may have contributed to the difference in ratings. These factors might include course nature, curriculum design, and students’ background, which this study did not account for in the analysis.

6. Conclusion and Implications

The study set out to examine users’ experiences in using TWiki and MediaWiki in the context of collaborative learning and knowledge management in higher education. Both wiki variants were regarded as suitable tools for group work co-construction, which were found to be effective in improving group collaboration and improving the quality of work. Wikis were also viewed as enabling tools for knowledge construction and sharing, wherein MediaWiki may be more effective. The combined utilities of wikis for collaboration, knowledge construction and knowledge sharing suggest that such tools are potentially supportive of an interactive approach at knowledge management.

The findings of this study also provide evidence supporting the proposition that wikis facilitate active learning, by addressing users’ needs for project management, information sharing, and project development. MediaWiki was reported to be easier and more enjoyable to use than TWiki. A user-friendly interface is a key criterion for a wiki to be qualified as a suitable platform for collaboration and knowledge management particularly because the users were part-time postgraduate students, who had limited time to learn a new online tool.

The wikis were perceived to be effective in facilitating collaborative group projects, knowledge construction, and knowledge sharing. This is further supported by the recommendations of more students to incorporate wiki into future course designs. However, it must be noted that users indicated hesitation in applying wiki for future work and personal use because the required IT skills in setting up the tool were perceived to constitute a major obstacle.

The findings of this study offer evidence that wiki has a promising potential as a platform for group collaboration and knowledge management in the higher education context. However, there seems to be a need to simplify the formatting options and enhance the user interface in order to facilitate more efficient usage. While the wiki technology appears to provide useful functionalities, sufficient guidance and instruction from teachers are equally important to facilitate students’ collaboration on wikis and motivate knowledge construction.


References

Augar, N., Raitman, R. & Zhou, W. (2004). Teaching and learning online with wikis. In Beyond the Comfort Zone: Proceedings ASCILITE 2004. Perth, AU.

Bower, M., Woo, K., Roberts, M., Watters, P. (2006). Wiki Pedagogy - A Tale of Two Wikis. Proceedings of the Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training Conference. Sydney, Australia, July 2006 (pp. 191-202).

Bruns, A., & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment: The M/Cyclopedia project. Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis. San Diego, CA, U.S.A.

Chu, S.K.W., Chan, C.K.K., & Tiwari, A.F.Y. (2012). Using blogs to support learning during internship. Computers & Education, 58, 989-1000.

Chu, S.K.W. & Kennedy, D.M. (2011). Using online collaborative tools for groups to co-construct knowledge. Online Information Review, 35, 581-597.

Chu, S.K.W. (2008). TWiki for knowledge building and management. Online Information Review, 32, 745-758.Chu, S., Cheung, J., Ma, L. & Leung D (2008). Student’s Co-Construction of Group Project Work via TWiki.

Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Knowledge Management, Columbus, Ohio, October 23-24, 2008 (pp. 27-41).

Cohen, R. J. and Swerdlik, M.E. (2010). Psychological testing and assessment: an introduction to test and measurement (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

Crotty, T. (1994) Integrating distance learning activities to enhance teacher education toward the constructivist paradigm of teaching and learning. In Distance Learning Research Conference Proceedings, 31-37. College Station, TX: Department of Education and Human Resource Development, Texas A & M University.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the Design and Delivery of Instruction." In D. H. Jonassen (ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Macmillan.

Edge, K. (2005). Knowledge management as a tool for district-level instructional renewal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Canada.

Elgort, I. Smith, A.G and Toland, J (2008) Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195-210.

Foley, B., & Chang, T. (2006, April). Wiki as a professional development tool, The American Education Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco, CA.

Forte, Andrea and Amy Bruckman. (2006) From Wikipedia to the classroom: exploring online publication and learning. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Vol 1. Bloomington, IN, pp. 182-188.

Forte, Andrea & Bruckman, Amy. (2007). Constructing text: wiki as a toolkit for (collaborative?) learning. Proceedings of WikiSym 2007. (Montreal, Canada), 31-42.

Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance Education. In D. H. Jonassen & Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, Second Edition (pp. 355-395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hazari, S., North, Alexa, Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating pedagogical value of wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187-198.

Jang, S. (2007). A study of students’ construction of science knowledge: Talk and writing in a collaborative group. Educational Research, 49, 65 – 81.

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. (1995) Constructivism and Computer-mediated communication in Distance Education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.

Lamb, A. (2004). Wide open spaces wikis ready or not. Educause Review, 39, 36-48.Lipponen, L. (2002), Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative learning. CSCL 2002.

http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/31.html.Kember, D. (2009). Promoting student-centred forms of learning across an entire university. HigherEducation,

58(1), 1-13.Klobas, J. (2006). Wikis, from social software to social information space. In J. Klobas (Ed.), Wikis: tools for

information work and collaboration. (pp. 1-33). Oxford : Chandos. Mole, J. (2002). The geography of thinking. Clinical Medicine, Journal of the Royal College of Physicians,

2, 343-345.Molyneaux, T., & Brumley, J. (2007) The use of wikis as a management tool to facilitate group project work. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education


http://www.andreaforte.net/ForteBruckmanFromWikipedia.pdf

http://www.andreaforte.net/ForteBruckmanFromWikipedia.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rcop/cm

http://newmedia.colorado.edu/cscl/31.html

AaeE. Melbourne: Melbourne University. Retrieved 25 October, 2010, from http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/aaee2007/papers/paper_58.pdf.Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 96–104.Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the

dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Norman G. R., Schmidt H. G.. (1992) The psychological basis of problem-based learning: a review of evidence.

Academic Medicine, 67, 557-565.Paquet, S. (2006). Wikis in business. In J. Klobas (Ed.), Wikis: tools for information work and collaboration.

(pp. 99-117). Oxford : Chandos. Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designing knowledge management systems for teaching and

learning with wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16, 311-320.Raygan, R., & Green, D. (2002). Internet collaboration: TWiki. Proceedings IEEE SoutheastCon 2002,

Columbia, SC.Schaffert, S., Bischof, D., Buerger, T., Gruber, A., Hilzensauer, W., & Schaffert, S. (2006). Learning with

semantic wikis. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Semantic Wikis – From Wiki to Semantics (SemWiki2006). Budva, Montenegro.

Stvilia, B., Twidale, M., Smith, L., & Gasser, L. (2008). Information quality work organization in Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 983-1001.

Tonkin, E. (2005) Making the Case for a Wiki. ARIADNE, 42.Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated

communication in academic education. Proceedings of Euro CSCL, 625–632.Woo, M. Chu, S., Ho, A. & Li, XX. (2011). Using a Wiki to Scaffold Primary School Students’ Collaborative

Writing. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(1): 43-54.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VCJ-4G24XB1-2&_user=28301&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000003298&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=28301&md5=fd4c7443d988b107088d237d75433a4f#bbib55%23bbib55

Appendix

Instrument used to interview students about their experience with using MediaWiki to support their group project in a course.

This 15-minute interview tries to solicit your opinion on the use of MediaWiki in creating the report for your group project for the KM course.

1. Did the wiki way of creating a report for your group project improve the collaboration among the group members?

Not at all Very much so1 2 3 4 5

Would you comment on this?

2. Did wiki in some ways help improve the quality of your group report? Quality of report here refers to the content of report, for instance, depth of analyses, bringing

in innovative ideas, etc.



3. Did you find MediaWiki easy to use?Very difficult Very easy1 2 3 4 5


4. What kinds of problems did you encounter when using MediaWiki?

5. Did you enjoy doing your group project work in MediaWiki?Not at all Very much so1 2 3 4 5


6. Did you find MediaWiki a suitable tool for students to co-construct their group project work online?



7. Please comment on MediaWiki as an enabling technology for knowledge management in terms of knowledge creation, capturing, sharing and transferring?

7.1 MediaWiki as an enabling technology for knowledge creation? Not at all Very much so1 2 3 4 5



7.2 MediaWiki as an enabling technology for knowledge capturing (i.e. finding ways to make tacit knowledge explicit)?



7.3 MediaWiki as an enabling technology for knowledge sharing?Not at all Very much so1 2 3 4 5


7.4 MediaWiki as an enabling technology for knowledge transferring (i.e. a process of getting a packet of knowledge from one organization to another)?



8. When preparing a report for a group project in the past, you would in general use Ms Word. How would you compare the two ways of creating a group report?

Using Ms Word (or something similar in the past) And now with MediaWiki

9. Suppose you are the lecturer of the KM course, will you continue to use MediaWiki for students’ group project in the future or will you ask students to use MS Word instead?

10. What’s your feeling toward editing your group members’ work? Will you feel uncomfortable doing it?

11. Do you find it useful to have a log of all the modifications that you have made in MediaWiki? Will you feel uncomfortable to have all your modifications kept in MediaWiki?

12. What’s your feeling towards allowing each group to view other groups’ work in MediaWiki?

13. Do you think you may continue to use MediaWiki for work or for personal reasons in the future? Why or why not?

14. Did your experience of using MediaWiki for your group project enhance your Information Technology (IT) literacy in terms of composing, editing and organizing materials in an online environment?




15. For all sorts of word-processing work that you did (in MediaWiki, MS Word, or others) for the project, please estimate the percentage of the work you completed in MediaWiki.

0% 1% - 33% 33%-66% 66%-99% 100%

If the answer is not 100%, ask: Why didn’t you do all your work in MediaWiki?

16.1 Was there a division of labor between you and your group members regarding the group project work done in MediaWiki? Please describe.

16.2 Did some group members do their work outside MediaWiki and hand it to other member(s) for uploading to MediaWiki?

16.3 If so, what were the reasons for not having everyone do their work in MediaWiki?

17. Any other comments?


AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

Dr. Samuel Kai Wah Chu is the Deputy Director (Centre for Information Technology in Education) in the Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong. He has published widely in the areas of Web 2.0 for teaching and learning, inquiry-based learning, and knowledge management.

Dr. Felix Siu is an experienced academic staff in the Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong. He has many years of teaching experience in the areas of information technology and communication in education for both undergraduate and post-graduate courses.

Michael Liang, a seasoned IT consultant, is the Managing Director of WiderWorld Company Ltd.

Catherine M. Capio is a research postgraduate of the Institute of Human Performance at the University of Hong Kong.

Ms. Wendy W.Y. Wu specializes in knowledge management and new modes of learning, including Web 2.0 technology implementation in the educational settings. She can be reached at [email protected].


educational technology & society - university of hong...

Documents