Wiki pedagogies

Wiki pedagogies Mira Vogel Goldsmiths, University of London

Overview
Why wikis?
Considerations
Learners' epistemological beliefs
Peer relationships
Implications
Design of wiki tasks
Assessment
A scenario for discussion

Why wikis?

(The intensifying economic drivers for peer learning.)

Wikis: legitimate learning institutions
“… a collaborative, knowledge-making impulse in humans who are willing to contribute, correct, and collect information without remuneration: by definition, this is education . To miss how much such collaborative, participatory learning underscores the foundations of learning is defeatist, unimaginative, even self-destructive.”
(Davidson and Goldberg 2009)

Wikis: real-world
“… the user-centred focus of Web 2.0 activities supports the learner in transgressing and resituating content and practices between the formal and informal learning settings in which s/he participates.”
(Dohn, 2009)

Wikis: real-world
“ ... amplify the students’ sense that there may be multiple interpretations of the same topic of study or discussion point ... It also underlines the fact that interpretations may converge or diverge, highlighting the natural complexity of interrelations within the realms of knowledge .”
(Trentin, 2008)

But so far they haven’t taken off in higher learning.

Great Expectations, JISC IPSOS MORI, 2008 Familiar Unfamiliar Comfortable Not comfortable Instant messaging Text message admin updates Administrative materials online Using existing online social networks to discuss coursework Emailing tutors Course-specific materials online Posting questions Online to tutors Web CT Using social networks such as Facebook as a formal part of the course Submitting assignments online Using podcasts Making podcasts Making wikis

Considerations

Epistemological beliefs - beliefs about the nature of knowledge and the process of knowing.

Desirable beliefs about knowledge
Knowledge as complex, tentative, derived by reason, acquired gradually, and related to persistence and hard work.
Teaching can make a difference.

General epistemologies Schommer, 1990 Quick or never  Gradual Fixed  Can change Authority  Reason Simple  Complex Absolute  Tentative Simple  Sophisticated Speed Ability Source Structure Certainty Dimensions

“ accepting the challenge of struggling with the domain” (Tolhurst, 2007)

Relationships

Group work behaviour
‘ Social loafing’
Less individual effort compared to lone work
Infectious
‘ Diligent isolate’ depends on self alone to get the job done
Compounds any loafing
However, smaller groups
Can easily meet offline
May lack critical mass or creative friction

Cooperation is not collaboration
Where learning is viewed as acquisition, peer editing isn’t viewed as constructive:
Multi-centred, individualistic contributions
Adding rather than editing – let alone deleting
Bargaining
“ I think I will cry if anyone changes my page!!!”
(Wheeler et al, 2008)

Design of tasks & assessment

Sharing knowledge Stahl & Hesse, 2009 Others? Negotiating a consensus on artefact, problem, or goal Transferring, comparing, not necessarily changing Entails Shared object Shared mental representations Paradigm

Designing in collaboration
Participation- as well as content-related criteria
Cultivating peer criticism as constructive
Multiple assessment points
Ways of maintaining awareness
Externalising organisation of responsibilities, objectives, milestones, &tc
e.g. forums, blog, chat transcripts
Comments rather than edits?

Trentin, 2008

Scaffolding, rules, constraints
Help keeping abreast of developments
Prefab or templated pages to edit
Taxonomy for tagging
e.g. only link designated words (boundaries)
Set of peer questioning stems
Division of labour (equal opps; control)
Things you can count (words per page, minimum number of entries)

Assessment - giving credit
Negotiating assessment criteria
More than demonstrating a knowledge object
Interdependence
Multiple assessment points (stops free-riding)
‘ Procedural justice’ (metrics)
‘ Distributive justice’ (recognition)
Peer, group, and individual marks
For the overall process
For each student’s role in the process
For the end product

References / bibliography
Davidson, C. & Goldberg, D., 2009. The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Available at: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/Future_of_Learning.pdf.
Dohn, N.B., 2009. Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), pp.343-363.
JISC Ipsos MORI (2008) Great expectations of ICT: How Higher Education institutions are measuring up. Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/greatexpectations.aspx
Karasavvidis, I., 2010. Wiki uses in higher education: exploring barriers to successful implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), pp.219-231.
Larusson, J.A. & Alterman, R., 2009. Wikis to support the “collaborative” part of collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), pp.371-402.
Piezon, S.L.,& Donaldson, R.L. (2005). Online groups and social loafing:Understanding student-group interactions.Online Journal ofDistance Learning Administration, 8(4). Retrieved from: http://www.westga.edu/*distance/ojdla/winter84/piezon84.htm
Schommer, M. (1990) Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension, Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504.
Stahl, G. & Hesse, F., 2009. Paradigms of shared knowledge. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(4), pp.365-369.
Trentin, G., 2008. Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(1), pp.43-55.
Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987–995.

Scenario
A colleague from Psychology approaches you. He wants his cohort of 20 MSc students to co-write reviews of the course’s weekly visiting presenter series.
He says these will be assessed , but he hasn’t yet decided how.
He asks only for a guide to using the VLE’s wiki tool that he can circulate to students.
How do you respond?

Issues to resolve with wikis
Group task needs to be integrated
Uneven or low participation
Free-riding
Competition for popular content
Students skeptical about value of own knowledge
Complexity of editing
Trepidation about editing peers’ work
Bargaining for credit
Resistance to being edited
Need for sustained attention / awareness
Need for good communication
Plagiarism
Demands of software
Gaming the assessment
Resent being assessed as group

Wiki pedagogies

by miravogel on Nov 30, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 1

Statistics

Wiki pedagogies — Presentation Transcript