How Wiki-based Tasks, and Forums Favor University Students' Writing Skills and Promote Collaborative Autonomy

How Wiki-based Tasks, and Forums Favour University
Students' Writing Skills and Promote Collaborative
Autonomy
Dra. Ana María Pinto Llorente
Dra. Mª Cruz Sánchez Gómez
Dr. Francisco José García Peñalvo
Dr. Marcos Cabezas González
Salamanca, November 2016

TEEM'16 Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality November 2016
Introduction
The present study is conducted in the framework of English as a Second Language and
Technology.
Technology
(Web 2.0)
Wiki & Forum (Research in SLL)
Writting skills
Autonomous & Collaborative Learning
Teaching a Second Language
Communicative competence
Written skills
Reading Comprehension
Written Expression
→
→

Objectives
The aim of the present study was to know the students’ perception about the efficacy of
wiki-based activities, and forums to improve their written skills and promote the
collaborative autonomy.
We tried to test these hypotheses
H1. Students will improve significantly their writing skills and English culture through
the development of wiki-based activities.
H2. Wiki-based activities will allow carrying out a collective authorship and the
construction of knowledge.
H3. Wiki-based activities will support autonomous and cooperative learning.
H4. Forums will support a dynamic process, the communication with peers and the
exchange of ideas.

Method
We have employed a Quantitative Research
Ex-post-facto design.
A survey method.
Descriptive and inferential analysis for the different strata sample of
the study.
Research Phases
1. We established the objectives and hypothesis of our research.
2. We selected the sample and we decided the variables of the tests.
3. We carried out the register coding and data analysis, to obtain the results and conclusions
of our study.

Population and Sample
Population
451 students at the Faculty of Education at the Pontifical University of Salamanca
(enrolled in the subject English I of the Degree in Primary Education: English).
• 358 students → 83 men (23.2%) and 275 women (76.8%)
• There were four age groups → 20-24 (24.6%, 88 cases), 25-29 (25.7%, 92 cases), 30-34
(34.4%, 123 cases) and 35 or more than 35 (15.4%, 55 cases)
• Average age → 29.49 (SD = 5.99).
• They all had already finished a previous university Degree (n = 358)
• 82.1% (n=294) were already working, and 70.7% (n=253) had a job related to education,
holding the position of teachers in infant (22.1%), primary (28.2%) and secondary education
(7.3%).
Sample
(Probability sample. Cluster sampling. Relative error 2.5%)

Instrument
Instrument
Pre-test (19 items) & post-test (30 items) hosted on the VLE.
Both tests were divided into three parts: Students’ personal details, English as a second language &
Technology.
Types of questions → open, close, yes/no, multiple choice, & Likert scale → halo effect.
External validity → A panel of experts (Education Research, Technology and English).
Internal consistency → Cronbach’s alpha, α=0.853 (pre-test) & α=0.853 (post-test).

Data Collection & Analysis
Data Collection
We collected the data in the subject English I at the beginning and at the end of the academic year.
Then these data were coded to enter them in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPPS)
version 24.
Analysis
We carried out different statistical analyses, taking into account the nature of the variables:
descriptive statistics (frequencies), and inferential (paired sample t-tests, and analysis of variance:
ANOVA).

Results
English as a Second Language
Paired Samples Correlations
t Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 Writing & Writing -21,278 .130 .014
Pair 2 Reading & Reading -18,942 .135 .010
Pair 3 Vocabulary & Vocabulary -18,207 -.116 .028
Pair 4
Grammatical Competence &
Grammatical Competence
-20,057 .113 .033
Pair 5
Discourse Competence & Discourse
competence
-24,257 .108 .042
Pair 6 Culture & Culture -26,117 -.121 .023
Pair 7 Confidence in L2 & Confidence in L2 -10,000 .110 .038
*95% Confidence Interval of the Difference. n=358

Results
Technology
Multiple Comparisons
(I) Group of Age (J) Group of Age Mean Difference (I-J) Sig.
Dependent variable: Digital Competence
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 1.638* .000
35 or more than 35 1.710* .000
25-29 30-34 1.549* .000
35 or more than 35 1.621* .000
* .The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. n= 358
Students assessed their digital competence at the beginning of the semester as good (35.5%,
n=127), very good (26.5%, n=95) or excellent (23.5%, n=84) .
At the end of the semester participants self-assess their improvement in their digital
competence as very good (32.5%, n=116) and excellent (55.3%, n=198) . Just a small
percentage of the students assessed it as good (9,8%, n=35), fair (2.2%, n=8), or poor (0.3%,
n=1).

Results
Dependent variable: Knowledge about the Use of Wiki
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 2.353* .000
35 or more than 35 2.638* .000
25-29 30-34 2.354* .000
35 or more than 35 2.639 .000
Dependent variable: Knowledge about the Use of Forum
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 1.534* .000
35 or more than 35 1.621* .000
25-29 30-34 1.345* .000
35 or more than 35 1.432* .000
Most participants considered their knowledge about the use of a wiki-based activities and
forums was good (15.9%, n=57 / 36.9%, n=132), very good (29.1%, n=104 / 28.2%, n=101) or
excellent (16.5%, n=59 / 19%, n=68).
Technology. Knowledge of wiki-based activities and forums

Results
Technology. Frequency of participation in Wiki-based activities and forums
Dependent variable: Frequency of Participation in Forums
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 1.902* .000
35 or more than 35 2.106* .000
25-29 30-34 1.905* .000
35 or more than 35 2.109* .000
Dependent variable: Frequency of Participation in Wiki-Based Activities
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 1.398* .000
35 or more than 35 1.287* .000
25-29 30-34 1.246* .000
35 or more than 35 1.144* .000
Most participants stated they participated in wiki-based activities and forums sometimes (41.3%,
n=148 / 15.1%, n=54), almost everytime (12.6%, n=45 / 27.9%, n=100) or everytime (8.4%, n=30 /
16.5% (n=59).

Results
Efficacy of Wiki-based Activities
Efficacy of the Wiki-Based Activities
2: Very ineffective 3: Neither effective nor ineffective
4: Very effective 5: Absolutely effective
2 3 4 5
n % n % n % n %
I21 9 2.5 65 18.2 151 42.2 133 37.2
I22 7 2.0 55 15.4 203 56.7 93 26.0
I23 16 4.5 57 15.9 198 55.3 87 24.3
I24 10 2.8 60 16.8 192 53.6 96 26.8
I25 2 0.6 60 16.8 201 56.1 95 26.5
I26 2 0.6 61 17.0 212 59.2 83 23.2
I27 2 0.6 57 15.9 210 58.7 89 24.9
I28 3 0.8 61 17.0 218 60.9 76 21.2
I29 5 1.4 65 18.2 211 58.9 77 21.5
I30 6 1.7 65 18.2 201 56.1 86 24.0
to expand their knowledge in the second language (I21), to construct knowledge (I22), to reflect about the
second language (I23), to develop a community project (I24), to create a learning community (I25), to create
a democratic community of collaboration (I26), to carry out collective authorship (I27), to support
autonomous learning (I28), to support cooperative learning (I29), and to change roles: authors, editors,
assessors, and guides (I30).

Dependent variable: Efficacy of the Wiki-Based Activities to Construct Knowledge
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 .643* .000
35 or more than 35 .680* .000
25-29 30-34 .522* .000
35 or more than 35 .559* .000
Dependent variable: Efficacy of the Wiki-Based Activities to Develop a Community Project
Scheffe 20-24 30-34
35 or more than 35
.567* .000
.588* .000
25-29 30-34
35 or more than 35
.560* .000
.581* .000

Dependent variable: Efficacy of the Wiki-Based Activities to Create a Learning Community
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 .466* .000
35 or more than 35 .508* .000
25-29 30-34 .393* .000
35 or more than 35 .435* .000
Dependent variable: Efficacy of the Wiki-Based Activities to Create a Democratic Community of
Collaboration
Scheffe 20-24 30-34
35 or more than 35
.414* .000
.398* .000
25-29 30-34
35 or more than 35
.422* .000
.406* .000

Dependent variable: Efficacy of the Wiki-Based Activities to carry out Collective Authorship
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 .365* .000
35 or more than 35 .421* .000
25-29 30-34 .339* .000
35 or more than 35 .395* .000
Dependent variable: Efficacy of the Wiki-Based Activities to Support Autonomous learning
Scheffe 20-24 30-34
35 or more than 35
.430* .000
.526* .000
25-29 30-34
35 or more than 35
.438* .000
.534* .000

Dependent variable: Efficacy of the Wiki-Based Activities to Support Cooperative Learning
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 .436* .000
35 or more than 35 .509* .000
25-29 30-34 .500* .000
35 or more than 35 .574* .000
Dependent variable: Efficacy of the Wiki-Based Activities to Change Roles: Authors, Editors,
Assessors & Guides
Scheffe 20-24 30-34
35 or more than 35
.575* .000
.642* .000
25-29 30-34
35 or more than 35
.535* .000
.603* .000

Results
Efficacy of Forums
The majority of the participants considered forums as very effective or absolutely effective to:
• communicate with their project partners (50.6%, n=181 / 23.7%, n=85).
• get consensus (48.9%, n=175 / 26.3%, n=94),
• resolve conflicts (60.3%, n=216 / 20.7%, n=74),
• provide a constructive feedback (57.3%, n=205 / 23.2%, n=83)
• support a dynamic process (56.7%, n=203 / 25.7%, n=92).

Dependent variable: Efficacy of Forums to Communicate with their Project Partners
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 .626* .000
35 or more than 35 .633* .000
25-29 30-34 .513* .000
35 or more than 35 .519* .000
Dependent variable: Efficacy of Forums to Get Consensus
Scheffe 20-24 30-34
35 or more than 35
.794* .000
.773* .000
25-29 30-34
35 or more than 35
.577* .000
.556* .000

Dependent variable: Efficacy of Forums to Resolve Conflicts
Scheffe 20-24 30-34 .511* .000
35 or more than 35 .435* .000
25-29 30-34 .497* .000
35 or more than 35 .421* .000
Dependent variable: Efficacy of Forums to Provide a Constructive Feedback
Scheffe 20-24 30-34
35 or more than 35
.571*
.618*
.000
.000
25-29 30-34
35 or more than 35
.454*
.501*
.000
.000
Dependent variable: Efficacy of Forums to Support a Dynamic Process
Scheffe 20-24 30-34
35 or more than 35
.577*
.568*
.000
.000
25-29 30-34
35 or more than 35
.547*
.537*
.000
.000

Conclusions
Effectiveness of wiki-based activities and forums in the development of the second-language
students' written skills.
Learners’ improvements in their:
• level of the grammatical and discourse competences
• confidence in second language (L2)
• vocabulary
• knowledge of the English culture
Students' engagement with their learning:
• They were actively involved in the development of the wiki-based activities
• They took decisions and assumed individual responsibilities in the group

Conclusions
Creation of a learning community → a democratic community of collaboration
Collective authorship → cooperative and autonomous learning → participants’ roles
Learners’ satisfaction towards the use of forums to:
• communicate with their project partners
• get consensus about the development of the activities
• resolve the conflicts that took place
• provide a constructive feedback
• support a dynamic process
The potential of the wiki-based activities and forums to:
• carry out tasks that favor university students' writing skills
• promote collaborative autonomy

How Wiki-based Tasks, and Forums Favor University Students' Writing Skills and Promote Collaborative Autonomy

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to How Wiki-based Tasks, and Forums Favor University Students' Writing Skills and Promote Collaborative Autonomy

Similar to How Wiki-based Tasks, and Forums Favor University Students' Writing Skills and Promote Collaborative Autonomy (20)

More from Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality

More from Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How Wiki-based Tasks, and Forums Favor University Students' Writing Skills and Promote Collaborative Autonomy