sutton - using the wiki as an experiential learning tool to engage students

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher EducationEmerald Book Chapter: Using the Wiki as an Experiential Learning Tool to Engage Students in Undergraduate and Graduate University CoursesMichael J.D. Sutton, Afsaneh Hazeri

Article information:

To cite this document: Michael J.D. Sutton, Afsaneh Hazeri, "Using the Wiki as an Experiential Learning Tool to Engage Students in Undergraduate and Graduate University Courses", Charles Wankel, Patrick Blessinger, in (ed.) Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Online Learning Activities (Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 6), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 195 - 225

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2044-9968(2012)000006A010

Downloaded on: 04-01-2013

References: This document contains references to 33 other documents

To copy this document: [email protected]

This document has been downloaded 4 times since 2012. *

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

USING THE WIKI AS AN

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING TOOL

TO ENGAGE STUDENTS IN

UNDERGRADUATE AND

GRADUATE UNIVERSITY

COURSES

Michael J. D. Sutton and Afsaneh Hazeri

ABSTRACT

This literature review explores the academic material comprising appli-cations, cases, courses, and classroom-based research in higher educationwhere wiki tools appeared as an instructional technology. The authorsdefine and describe the wiki concept, outlining a framework for wikisdeployed as instructional technology tools. Additionally, analyses andsyntheses of the findings are described from an interdisciplinary researchliterature search across many fields, along with a number of illustrative,exemplary cases demonstrating the application of this tool to teachingand learning. The authors also identify research evidence that outlinesthe benefits and strengths offered by new wiki technologies, whilehighlighting challenges, weaknesses, and issues encompassing their

Increasing Student Engagement and Retention using Online Learning Activities:

Wikis, Blogs and Webquests

Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 6A, 195�225

Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 2044-9968/doi:10.1108/S2044-9968(2012)000006A010

195

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

application in courses. The authors also outline numerous theories oflearning that can be associated with wiki work; new forms of wiki-basedlearning; patterns of wiki technology use; characteristics of learnersusing wikis; and the changing role of teaching and teachers who instructwith wikis. Finally, we conclude with a summary of the findings and sug-gested future directions for studying wikis in higher education (HE).Although no broad, definitive prognosis yet exists that can point to acause�effect relationship between the application of wikis and increasesin learning, a significant body of evidence has emerged that suggests thatwikis positively stimulate the learning environment and increase the col-laborative capabilities of learners when applied to course work.

Keywords: Adult learning; andragogical; pedagogical; application ofwikis; case(s); experiential learning; teaching framework; theory oflearning; wikis; higher education; wiki-based learning

INTRODUCTION

This chapter is structured into five major sections and attempts to describeand highlight a number of research issues drawn from exemplary cases ofwikis in higher education (HE). The first section, Background and Motiva-tion, consists of three critical subsections: definitions and descriptions of thewiki concept, wikis as an instructional technology tool, and goal of the liter-ature review. The second section, Methodology, describes the purpose of aresearch exemplary case review and the elements comprising a research liter-ature review. The third section, the Emergence of Wikis in Higher Education,outlines the evolution of wikis within HE. The fourth section, TransformingTeachers, Learners, and Learning, encompasses applicable theories of learn-ing, new forms of learning, patterns of technology use, characteristics oflearners, and changing role of teaching and teachers. Finally, the Conclu-sions and Future Directions section brings together a synthesis of discoveriesrelevant to the literature review and future studies.

BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION

An initial round of searches furnished literature reviews, cases, book chap-ter descriptions, conference proceedings paper and presentations, andempirically-grounded studies associated with wikis in HE. We reviewed

196 MICHAEL J.D. SUTTON AND AFSANEH HAZERI

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

many cases where wikis were specifically used in traditional and onlineclasses, courses, or classrooms. Most noteworthy is the paucity of evidencesuggesting or recommending the ways this relatively new technology couldchange learning and teaching practice. The source for the largest body ofmaterial comes from scholars, instructional designers, and educationaltechnologists associated with traditional, e-learning, and distance learninginitiatives.

We consider wikis as experiential learning tools. Kolb (1984, p. 21) wasan early proponent of experiential learning, “Knowledge is continuouslyderived from and tested out in the experiences of the learner.” Chickering(1977, pp. 86�87) proposed, “There is no question that issues raised byexperiential learning go to the heart of the academic enterprise. Experien-tial learning leads us to question the assumptions and conventions underly-ing many of our practices.” Concomitantly, Kayes (2002) contended that“preserving experience-based approaches to … learning … [require instruc-tors to revise] the concept of experience to more closely account for therelationship between personal and social (i.e., tacit/explicit) knowledge”(p. 137). Lindeman (1961, p. 6) forecasted, “...the resource of highest valuein adult education is the learner’s experience.” The dialogue on the valueof experiential learning is widespread (Sutton, McFarland, Sanchez, & Vuyo-vich, 2012). As this chapter will assert, wikis formed a foundation for expe-riential learning across all disciplines and college departments creatingsignificant positive advantages for both the learner and instructor of wiki-based classroom learning experiences.

Definitions and Descriptions of the Wiki Concept

Since wikis are most often applied in the classroom as experiential learningtools, let us look at how this came to be. Wikis are a collaboration soft-ware tool that gained notoriety and spawned a revolution, such as the phe-nomenon of Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org). In Wikis: Tools forInformation and Collaboration, Klobas (2006) outlines a very succinct his-tory of the wiki, beginning with a description of the Portland PatternRepository established in 1995 by Ward Cunnigham, a virtual location forcreating a sense of community and sharing information. Klobas goes on tomention SunirShah’s MeatballWiki founded in 2000, along with JimmyWales’ Wikipedia, which was launched in 2001. During the next five years,other commercial tools emerged in the marketplace: Socialtext, Conflu-ence, JotSpot, etc. Currently, there are probably over 100 different wikiengines, with a range of names (see Table 1).

197Wiki as an Experiential Learning Tool

http://www.wikipedia.org

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Wikis became popular during the last decade as a software technologyand a location (website) to collect and share a broad range of dataand information, from recipes, travel information, and corporate projectinformation to curricula, music lyrics, and movie material. Succinctly statedby Mader (2008), a “wiki is simply a website in which users can create andcollaboratively edit pages, and easily link them together” (p. 4). The wikipages can normally be accessed and used by individuals with little or noformal IT training. Wikis encompass a suite of common features that havebeen easily exploited for experiential learning (Klobas, 2006).

The online services for a wiki application can execute from a localserver or a remote server as a cloud-based computing application (Soft-ware as a Service � SaaS). A critical element of a wiki is the capability tostore and sequence the history of each edited page, permitting an editedpage to revert to a previous revision, if the user makes a request. Wikisalso engage the collaborators in a set of discussions and exchanges, stimu-lating the formation, modification, and potential transformation of thedata and information amongst a group of contributors, readers, and edi-tors. The formation (capture) and modification (alteration) of the data areeasier concepts to grasp than transformation (transmutation), which is themobilization of information into actionable knowledge by the user learner.

Wikis evolved as learning platforms when instructors applied the tool tothe goals of adult learning. Wikis demonstrate the transformative effectlearners have on personal responsibility (experiential and self-directed) ver-sus hierarchical command and control (professor-centric) classroom situa-tions. For example, a project-based, low-residency MBA program foundedupon a wiki of business topics (information), motivated learners to apply

Table 1. Representative Names of Wikis (Not Exhaustive).

@wiki InterWiki PHPWiki WackoWiki

ClearWiki IpbWiki PikiePikie WagnWiki

Corendal Wiki JAMWiki PmWiki Wetpaint

DokuWiki LittleWiki QwikiWiki Wikia

EclipseWiki MediaWiki ScribbleWiki Wikidot

EditMe Mindtouch Seedwiki Wiki-Site

EditThis.info MoinMoin Swiki.net Wikispaces

eTouchSamePage Netcipia TikiWiki Wikka Wiki

FlexWiki Ogham UseModWiki WikkiTikkiTavi

GetWiki On-Wiki VeryQuickWiki XWiki

Ikiwiki PBWiki ViaWiki XwikiWiki

InstikiWiki PerspectiveWiki VimKi ZwiKi


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

self-learning and personal mastery of the elements required to create a busi-ness plan, when browsed and applied to specific business problems (Sutton,2009a, 2010a). The information is mobilized into actionable knowledge bythe learner, due to the network of links within the corpus of topics. Thelearner finds a path through the information in order to articulate andweave a story from the underlying topics. Moreover, because of the HEenvironment, wikis demonstrate a capability for construction of HE learningorganizations that replace the status quo with nontraditional learning(Barkley, Cross, & Major, 2005; Fuchs-Kittowski & Kohler, 2002; Millis &Cottell, 1998; Raman, Ryan, & Olfman, 2005). A wiki may be metaphori-cally compared to the behavior of a tornado or maelstrom, pulling text andmedia from collaborators together into new configurations, where editingand wordsmithing can shape data and information into new knowledge thatwould not have been visible in solo, personal sources. Static information,when reworked by a community of learner-authors can take on the life of adynamic entity (vis-a-vis Wikipedia, to name the most prevalent today).

Wikis are under continual improvement and technological development.The wiki has become a utilitarian electronic notebook tool, where theknowledge of the whole evolves to be greater than the knowledge in anysingle actor. Grant, Owen, Sayers, and Facer (2006) outlined fundamentalshifts taking place in the relationship of practice-based knowledge with cre-ativity and innovation (an element where HE could benefit significantlywith applications of wikis in educational environments):

… our relationship with knowledge is changing, from one in which knowledge is orga-

nised in strictly classified ‘disciplines’ and ‘subjects’, to a more fluid and responsive

practice which allows us to organise knowledge in ways that are significant to us at dif-

ferent times and in different places. … New forms of collaboration tools are also emerg-

ing, where people can work together to build new documents or products. (pp. 3�4)

Traditional disciplinary boundaries of knowledge and learning quicklyerode, because the learner personalizes and appropriates knowledge nug-gets from a multitude of sources, regenerating new knowledge in theprocess. Wikis encourage new engagement patterns with classmates, knowl-edge, and learning. For example, Christensen and Eyring (2011) describedthe innovative nature and success of new competency-based, experiential,and project-based BBA and MBA programs founded upon a wiki knowl-edgebase coupled with faculty coaching of learners at Westminster Collegein Salt Lake City, UT, (see http://www.westminstercollege.edu/project-based/). Learning, knowledge production, and diffusion practices werebeing inexplicably altered by the presence of the wiki. Learners in the Bill


http://www.westminstercollege.edu/projectbased/

http://www.westminstercollege.edu/projectbased/

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

and Vieve Gore School of Business project-based programs adopted morecollaborative and less solitary methods of inquiry and collaboration.

Goal of the Literature Review

The overall goal of the literature review was to explore a wide range ofexisting references within the existing body of international literatureemerging through multidisciplinary and cross-disciplinary sources. Thepurpose of the review became an initial attempt to frame the new interdis-ciplinary educational field by analyzing emerging literature from many dif-ferent disciplines, subdisciplines, and fields of study. Approximately 500references were originally identified, retrieved, and reviewed; the consensuson the impact of wikis appeared to be positive. Evidence provided in aminority of cases, studies, and course descriptions were inconsistent or didnot reinforce the strengths of wiki tools in learning environments. Theemergent body of knowledge associated with wikis in HE is predominantlyfocused on the experiences and learning outcomes of learners. The answerto the question of how educators integrate wikis appropriately in formaleducation appeared contradictory.

For the purposes of this chapter, the authors decided to scope theirreview and identify exemplary cases with empirical evidence that coulddemonstrate the pros and cons of learner engagement of wiki tools withinHE environments. Our case study review was executed from the viewpointof educators who actually used wikis in undergraduate and graduate levelprograms. The authors felt that a review of exemplary cases could createthe foundation for further case-based research, where common criteria andconsistent evidence might emerge.

Exemplary cases are loosely defined by Soy (1997) as

� …carefully select cases [that] carefully examine the choices availablefrom among many research tools available in order to increase the valid-ity of the study… (para. 7);

� …deliberately sort[ing] the data in many different ways to expose or cre-ate new insights and will deliberately look for conflicting data to dis-confirm the analysis… (para. 18);

� …report[ing] the data in a way that transforms a complex issue into onethat can be understood, allowing the reader to question and examine thestudy and reach an understanding independent of the researcher…(para. 20).


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Yin (1994) outlined five characteristics of exemplary case studies: signifi-cance, completeness, consideration of alternative perspectives, reporting ofsufficient evidence, and an engaging composition. This chapter will reviewand report information from published cases that satisfy a majority of thecriteria outlined by Soy and Yin. The following section describes the meth-odology for the study.

A number of authors proposed that learner engagement with wikis pro-vides significant opportunities for self-representation, personal reflection,and additional instances of organized forms of collaboration and knowl-edge construction. Content is often remixed, repurposed, and regenera-ted into more refined knowledge nuggets through collaborative activitiescreating “network effects through an ‘architecture of participation,’ andgoing beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experi-ences” (O’Reilly, 2005, para. 2). Open access collaboration spaces(Wheeler, Yeomans, & Wheeler, 2008) and common wiki applications likecollaborative writing (Ferris & Wilder, 2006) have demonstrated this capa-bility. In the 2009 Horizon Report by Johnson, Levine, and Smith (as citedin Conole & Alevizou, 2010, p. 10), described critical success factors fortechnology adoption in HE for the period 2010 to 2015, one of which wasforecast to be “the work of students being seen as more collaborative innature and therefore there is potential for more intra- and inter- institu-tional collaboration.” Conole and Alevizou (2010) also outlined a recentimpulse of international reports describing the adoption and use of Web2.0 technology in the educational sector and the role of wikis in the trans-formation of HE. The authors wished to extend the research with thiscompilation of exemplary cases.

METHODOLOGY

An exploratory and explanatory study exhibits the strengths and weak-nesses associated with an inductive mode of analysis. We engaged in anexploratory study in order to investigate an unexplored territory and estab-lish familiarity and a deeper understanding with a new subject. The focusof the research in an exploratory study is the what questions about the phe-nomenon. Such studies normally unearthed original insights in the resultsabout what is going on that may advance theory associated with a newsubject or raise new questions. The focus of the research in an explanatorystudy is the how and why questions about the phenomenon. The result wasan illuminative evaluation (Parlett & Hamilton, 1972) of a subset of the


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

educational material covering the selected topic � wikis in HE. This illumi-native evaluation did not conform to a pure meta-analysis, but insteadencompassed descriptive and interpretative methods, rather than a predic-tive measurement.

Our literature review accessed material available from the academicsources that identified educational and classroom situations using wikis asan element of the instructional technology and support. The researcherswere satisfied that a significant corpus of material had been identified fromthe searches. The primary focus was wiki use and application in HE �(universities and colleges delivering undergraduate, graduate, doctoraldegrees and postgraduate, and continuing education certificates). Thescope of the material was reduced by excluding material that was not asso-ciated with HE � corporate and business environments, as well as K-12institutions (primary, secondary, middle, or high schools). Evidence sug-gesting the impact of wikis upon learning and teaching were reviewed.Assertions made by numerous authors of the material were included in theselection to be reviewed.

Research included in the review consisted of primary and secondaryresearch material, including abstracts, books, book chapters, conferencepresentations, conference proceedings, dissertations, journal articles �(both peer reviewed and nonpeer reviewed), practice descriptions, researchreports � (drafts as well as final form), and theses. The coverage was inter-national and consisted of English language material, or material explicitlytranslated into English that ranged from authors in Africa, Asia, China,Europe, and South America, to a predominance of material from Austra-lia, United Kingdom, and North America.

Google Scholart searches were initially performed to identify thepotential major sources for academically sound material available on theWorld Wide Web, private websites, portals, or Intranets where abstractsand titles might be accessible. When available, the Adobe pdf files,Microsoft Word documents, and Microsoft PowerPoint slides were down-loaded into a local repository. Following Google Scholart searches, plainGooglet searches were executed to try and locate material not availablein Scholar. Finally, when private Intranets and portals showed up on ahit list, the authors procured access through the college/university libraryor interlibrary loan.

The authors defined the search domain in terms of simple, separate,search queries formulated and executed to cast the widest possible netaround the potential fields and disciplines where the concepts appeared.The search strategies consisted of keywords and Boolean searches that


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

constrained the search to words or terms in the title, when possible, or oth-erwise a string of keywords available within the document. The keywordsencompassed a structured combination of the search terms:

� classroom,� collaboration,� education,� higher education,� learning,� student,� teaching, and� wiki.

In reviewing the downloaded material, over 75% of the identified mate-rial contained three of the suggested search terms as colocated wordswithin the title or abstract, while over 90% of the identified material con-tained two of the previously suggested search terms as colocated wordswithin the title or abstract.

Subsequently, online academic sources were searched in-depth, wherethe subject area within the title of the sources, theme, goal, or objectives ofthe journal/conference proceedings suggested a high probability of usefulmaterial. These sources netted any additional material not availablethrough Google Scholart or Googlet. The sample size of the originallyretrieved material was approximately 500 documents, including a half adozen dissertations and theses.

Our approach to the study was qualitative and employed a documentanalysis method to review the contents of cases that described the applica-tion of wikis in HE. This research was posited within an educational para-digm, constructivism. This paradigm was chosen because it provided anoverarching framework for exploring and interpreting a phenomenon, thewiki within an educational context. Constructivism is a paradigm forteaching and learning, which does not ignore the influence of personal rela-tionships, especially relationships fostered by an intimately collaborativetechnology like a wiki. We constructed an understanding of the phenome-non through experiences of the other researchers, who critically influencedthe character of their experiences (Confrey, 1990). The authors combined aconstructivist approach with Yin’s (1994) exploratory and explanatory casestudy approaches in order to report the findings.

Since a systematic research literature review (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, &Jackson, 2008) exceeded the authors’ time and budget constraints, the


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

researchers followed the research literature review steps outlined by Fink(2005) where a descriptive review, (in terms of an illuminative evaluation ofexemplary cases), was the anticipated deliverable. Although our abridgedprocess may have been less rigorous in its application to a topic than a stric-ter systematic literature review, it was still a disciplined method to identify anarrow corpus of research material for exploration.

The final screening criteria outlined below were used to ensure that thecorpus of retrieved material addressed the research topic narrowly enoughto proceed with case analyses:

1. Does a document address the use of wikis in an HE environment?2. Does a paper discuss real-life experiences (cases) or “lessons learned” of

using wiki-based practices for teaching or learning?3. Does the objective of the paper clearly mention teaching or learning

with the application and use of wikis?4. Does the paper adequately discuss contextual factors of the case, which

provided confidence that a retrieved document could make a valuablecontribution to understanding the application and use of wikis in anHE environment?

In the following section, the authors discuss cases that demonstrated theemergence of wikis as important loci of study.

EMERGENCE OF WIKIS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Wikis in HE were reported in the research literature since the mid to late1990s (Dillenbourg, 1999; Godwin-Jones, 2003; Gonzalez-Bueno, 1998;Warschauer, 1998). The initial occurrences of wikis on the Internet andWorld Wide Web were made available through online services whose pur-pose was group-based and team-centric collaboration, or what was calledat that time computer-mediated collaboration (CMC), (Fabos & Young,1999; Koschmann, 1996; Krauss &Fussell, 1991). As CMC tools grew inapplication, the emergence of the formal “wiki” came into existence.

Phillipson (2008) proposed a typology to describe different kinds ofwikis within HE:

� resource wiki,� presentation wiki,� gateway wiki,


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

� simulation wiki, or� illuminated wiki.

The resource wiki was flexible and applied to a wide range of courses.The purpose of a resource wiki was a repository to collect a collabora-tive knowledgebase of information for access that could include a pleth-ora of subjects. Notwithstanding the course goal, a resource wikifurnished a platform for collective constructivism. Learners could piggy-back upon peers work in preceding courses as a large corpus of informa-tion was collected within a project. Instructors built upon previouswork, such as the Wikipedia, soliciting and stimulating the creation oforiginal, new material. On the other hand, a presentation wiki was con-structed for the sole purpose of a discussion forum, where peer evalua-tion might occur by crafting, retrieving, and modifying information.Presentation wikis built knowledge nuggets from the learners’ individualperspectives into large communities of practice for group review andconstructive criticism.

Next, Phillipson presented the framework for gateway and simulationwikis. The gateway wiki acted as a data repository for static informationthat could easily be referenced, once it had been fixed as facts, that is, “sci-entific measurements, statistics, calculations, survey results, metrics, andany number of other data sets” (p. 26). In a gateway wiki, the fixed datawas the raw material of discussion and analysis. Additionally, a gatewaywiki was a platform for logging results of experiments, sharing experiences,proposing well-formulated questions, and making connections betweentheory and practice. A simulation wiki presents an interactive experience:it is built as a world to explore. A simulation wiki was constructed to con-vey decision-making outcomes, where indiscriminate, unplanned, and illog-ical pathways were traversed by the learner. A simulation wiki could forcea contrast and comparison of internal decisions versus real-life models.The subject of a simulation wiki could convey a doppelganger effect interms of being a proxy for the real world problem. A simulation wiki cre-ated a foundation for constructing narrative paths. Therefore, a simulationwiki might be applicable to history projects, event tracking, or creativewriting projects.

Finally, Phillipson described the illuminated wiki � a wiki directedtoward deciphering or elucidating a problem. In contrasting the illumi-nated wiki to the gateway wiki, the illuminated wiki mutated the topicunder study, tightly incorporating it into the structure and architecture ofthe wiki. Learners individually and communally marked up text, videos,


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

audios, and images contained on the illuminated wiki, resulting in a corpusthat integrated the original material with the discussion and commentsgenerated by the learners. Thus, Phillipson’s proposed framework for iden-tifying the wiki types most suited to specific course and class tasks fur-nishes researchers and instructors with an a la carte menu to choose anappropriate wiki tool, based on the learning strategy and anticipated learn-ing outcomes.

TRANSFORMING TEACHERS, LEARNERS,

AND LEARNING

In order to segment the information derived from the collected corpus ofknowledge, we decided to adopt the same categories as Conole and Alevi-zou (2010, p. 2) established for a major section of their literature reviewentitled “Changing learning and learners.” The subsections outlined weretheories of learning (associated with wiki applications), new forms of learn-ing, patterns of technology use, characteristics of learners, and changingrole of teaching and teachers. The authors of this study felt that parallelingConole and Alevizou’s study of Web 2.0 technology with our study wouldsegment the material into logical elements and provide a basis for cross-comparison. Over 90% of this chapter’s cases were not addressed specifi-cally in the report by Conole and Alevizou.

Theories of Learning (Associated with Wiki Applications)

Barton (2008, p. 186) proposed to answer the question “What are key ped-agogical benefits of wikis?” in a philosophical treatise. His conclusions,which suggested a starting point for this section, were as follows:

� Wikis demonstrate, in a clear and obvious fashion, how knowledge is a function of

communities engaged in ongoing discourse.

� [Wikis also] demonstrate and build upon the interconnectness of knowledge and

illustrate plainly that no discourse exists in isolation from other discourse.� …wikis make the fundamental importance of rhetoric clear to students.

Ironically, Barton, using an undergraduate course in Computers andEnglish as a case, described the challenges of deploying a knowledge-based


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

tool in the classroom in support of knowledge creation, representation,sharing, and diffusion. Barton proposed that his learners needed to incor-porate service learning and civic action within their wiki activism. He feltlearners needed to inculcate the concept of “giving back to their commu-nity” in order to become shapers of the public space.

Wikis … offer a democratic alternative to the mass society… Wikis are truly mass-pro-

duced, many-to-many writing spaces whose very design prevents the corporate control

structure so prevalent in the ‘culture industry.’ They allow the people to participate

directly in making meaning. (p. 192)

Visions of the world, society, and self appear to undergo transformationthrough the text and images projected by the different publics. Wikis, inBarton’s opinion could become an ideological tool for changing societybeyond the classroom.

Inquiry into the issues of applying wikis in the HE classroom is wide-spread, crossing many disciplines and subjects. Vie and deWinter (2008,p. 111) proposed a number of pedagogical reflection questions on theissues of ownership and collaboration within classroom wikis:

1. [What is] the way in which traditional authorship is upset by wikis?2. How can wikis be used to explore fostering the challenge of

collaboration?3. How can wikis encourage students to move beyond traditional notions

of ownership and academic writing and into more collaborative, publicdiscursive activities?

Cubric (2007) highlighted the value of a framework for supporting theuse of wikis with a learning and teaching process framework. The theoreti-cal foundation for her study encompassed constructivist learning theoriesof Vygotsky (1978), Gravett and Petersen (2002), and Novak and Patter-son (1998). Cubric described 13 lessons learned from the two case studies.Cubric concluded, “...students’ engagement with wiki-based learning activi-ties is directly proportional to the quality and frequency of tutor’s feed-back and the clarity of the underlying learning and teaching process”(p. 11). The learning and teaching process frameworks consisted of

� Feedback-driven learning and teaching framework;� On-line learning and teaching framework;� Feed-forward JITT (Just-In-Time Teaching) process; and� Facilitation and collaborative learning process.


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Later, in a separate work, Cubric (2008) outlined a mapping ofthe learning and teaching process to the agile development process(Cohn, 2006) and SCRUM process (http://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/presentations).

The underlying andragogy described by Dalsgaard (2006) asserted thatsocial software tools, such as wikis, support a social constructivistapproach to e-learning. Learners incorporate collaborative tools in orderto engage in social networking activities. Consequently, learners directtheir personal problem-solving process within the context of a socialenvironment. Social constructivism emphasizes the importance thatthe learner must be actively engaged in the learning process. Counter-prevailing viewpoints that are professor-centric suggest that the teacheris responsible and accountable for delivering knowledge, requiring onlypassive learning from the learner. In this study, the motivation forengaging communities in the application and use of wikis is scoped tothe educational sector alone. Often, the findings within work and prac-tice-based environments do not stand up to the test of validity andreproducibility of empirical experiments. Content, communication, andcollaboration comprise three critical dimensions to evaluate the value oflearning within the social context of a wiki.

New Forms of Learning

Silverstein (2009) suggested increased learning absorption and retention byundergraduate students taking an engineering course in Material andEnergy Balance. The learners were obligated to interact with a wiki after alecture and reflect upon selected textbook chapter elements. Althoughmany benefits were observed in the evolving student learning after lecturesand through the interaction on the wiki, Silverstein did note two outcomesthat were contradictory:

Comparing exam performance by this semesters’ students with previous terms students

show no statistically significant differences… Students that the instructor suspected at

the start of the course would be unable to complete the course were successful early in

the course and were able to demonstrate learning sufficient to pass the course with a

‘C’ or better. (para. 19)

Tselios, Altanopoulou, and Katsanos (2011) confirmed this last obser-vation in their study involving 36 first-year students attending an Introduc-tion to Web Science course. The study consisted of a pretest-posttestdesign. In this study, learners who initially were poor performers improved


http://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/presentations

http://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/presentations

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

almost 30% over the duration of the course. Not only were not-able learning gains reported but the students also indicated better writingperformance, increased self-organization skills, and improved collaborativegroup processes. The authors concluded “…that a properly designed,framed wiki-based activity could substantially facilitate students to achievehigh levels of learning” (p. 5).

Forte and Bruckman (2006) executed a detailed study of freshman lear-ners in an American government course at the Georgia Institute of Tech-nology. Three basic questions drove the study (p. 3):

1. To what extent do students’ interactions online affect their reasoningand writing?

2. How does publishing influence students’ beliefs about their writing andmotivation to write well?

3. How does publishing influence the content and tone of students’ writing?

Reasoning and learning was affected. The analysis of the first and finaldrafts of essays showed that 80% of the learners using peer evaluation in thewiki to revise papers and 90% received feedback associated with the argu-ment of the essay and its content. Most learners did not perceive the publicnature of a wiki as a site that would be outward facing to the public, espe-cially after the course finished, when it would become a resource. Explicitpermission was obtained from learners to reuse their material in the future,but learners were quite naıve and did not comprehend the true nature of thewiki or the fact others (in the public) might find their work interesting. Thepilot suggested that an online audience of a public wiki played a crucial rolein creating meaningful and effective writing-to-learn. In conclusion, theauthors described the basis for moving forward from this pilot (p. 6):

…wiki-supported information resources … signal a unique opportunity for student wri-

ters to enrich public discourse in a way that serves a real purpose and engages a real

audience…Online publishing can encourage students to adopt the view that writing is

one part of a collaborative process that involves both their efforts and the disposition

and ability of their readers experiences. A sense of audience is a vital part of written

communication.

A study by Guth (2007) at the University of Padua confirmed the valueForte and Bruckman discovered for engaging learners on public, class-room-based wikis (p. 65):

� writing on a public wiki promotes collaboration beyond the classroom;� publishing online leads to an increased sense of responsibility and more

accurate writing;


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

� knowledge sharing on a public wiki gives students a sense ofempowerment.

Nonetheless, Guth concluded that learners using a semipublic wiki,because they did not lose ownership of their pages to anonymous users,experienced a higher comfort level.

Patterns of Technology Use

Thomas and Minocha (2007) reported student feedback on the introduc-tion of a Moodle wiki in a Requirements Engineering (RE) course at theUK Open University. The authors proposed three questions to review thesuccess of the wiki and the course (p. 2):

� Did the wiki activities facilitate collaborative learning as we intended?� What other tools might support collaborative requirements development?� What are the challenges in teaching collaborative RE using a wiki?

A number of issues arose during the course. The design of the originalcourse was based on independent learning by the students. The introductionof the wiki created a collaborative, group-based approach to fulfilling theassignments. The scoring system had to be revised to take into account bothindividual contributions and group activities. In addition, the andragogymoved from an independent learner to include numerous elements ofsocial constructivism. Finally, one of the other issues revolved around moti-vation. In order to get the students to apply the wiki, numerous papers, andarticles related to requirements engineering were used as the topics for dis-cussion. Those outcomes suggest that traditional courses should not just bechanged with the introduction of a wiki, but need to be completely rede-signed, similar to problem discovered in moving traditional courses toonline courses.

Mixed methods for deriving answers to survey questions were used bythe authors to query up approximately 117 students. Qualitative feedbackfrom many of the open-ended questions suggested:

� the sharing of ideas, including constructive feedback, contributed to thestudents ability to reflect and modify their own views;

� collaborative authoring contributes to the iterative requirements engi-neering process;


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

� missed assumptions and inconsistent requirements were more easilyidentified.

In the next iteration of the RE course, Thomas and Minocha (2007)indicated that a number of initial problems encountered in the first offer-ing had been overcome. A significant problem was the lack of discussioncapabilities within the version of the Moodle wiki, and enhanced capabili-ties would be included in the future. In a five-month course, the logisticalchallenges of getting students together to self-organize for meetingsrequires the application of a scheduler augmented to the wiki. Finally, theinability of the students to meet face-to-face and carry out other onlinesocialization activities diminished the trust among group members whowere relative strangers. Again, the insights we gain from these findings arethe need to significant functionality as part of a wiki platform.

Thomas, King, Minocha, and Taylor (2008) followed up this initialstudy and expanded it to include 250 students in two courses at the UKOpen University encompassing 56 wikis. The two courses included a post-graduate Computing course, Software Requirements for Business Systems,which emulated the original Requirements Engineering course in 2007; anda postgraduate course in the Business School entitled Current Issues InPublic Management And Social Enterprise. A qualitative inductive analysiswas applied to identify emergent themes. The wikis were strictly text basedand designed to be exceptionally simple in the toolset. The goal was toconcentrate on content, not presentation. Even simple changes to a wikipage were not being tracked, since any modification by a new author maybe captured at the page level, but the author of the change cannot nor-mally be associated with text changed within a wiki page.

Simple wikis were defined as “a pull, not push, technology, which meansthat contributions are unknown unless one deliberately looks for them”(Thomas et al., 2008, p. 79). Constrained tools like a simple wiki exhibitedmany limitations. Simple wikis are strictly text-based, do not accommodaterich formatting, and cannot handle diagrams, images and photos. Richer,more complex wikis can accommodate multimedia material, provides alertsand subscriptions to modified pages, and has very rich features for format-ting text and data on the page. In conclusion, an attempt to utilize simplewikis failed because the students anticipated very rich formatting of con-tent as well as accurate presentation. Additionally, many of the loggingand discussion forum features that would comprise function rich wikiswere identified as very useful, again suggesting sophistication in the toolsneed to appropriately apply a wiki to a classroom situation.


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Bruns and Humphreys (2007) stumbled upon a very insightful observa-tion associated with user interface. After noting that a sparse MediaWikienvironment hindered the learners in a course, the Bruns and Humphreysintroduced Atlassian Confluencet, which had much richer functionality.The correct technology appeared to effect adoption as well as learning.Schroeder (2008) suggested that the use of a wiki by learners required thedevelopment of best practices that need to be conveyed in order to success-fully overcome the challenges of using the wiki architecture by novicelearners:

1. Create a culture of trust among wiki participants;2. Set up conventions and require students to abide by these;3. Have a common goal for all participants;4. Assign meaningful, authentic activities;5. Include explicit instructions and provide time for practice;6. Remind students of course deadlines and schedules;7. Define and identify roles for collaborative activities;8. Provide clear and explicit course expectations;9. Model examples of collaborative activities; and

10. Be patient with students and realize they may need help.

Characteristics of Learners

Evans (2005) described the experience of her learners with a wiki in acourse entitled Introduction to the Culture and Literature of Quebec. Sheprovided a platform to increase the quality of individual and group presen-tations encompassing cultural topics. Her previous course experience sug-gested that students lacked the application of knowledge associated withresearching a topic and were not confident in their delivery of the presenta-tion. After the students engaged in their work using the wiki for fiveweeks, Evans (p. 3) noticed some remarkable qualitative effects:

The instructor had envisioned several small groups of students working together on

topics... Instead, every student in the class chose to work individually and there was

very little visible or audible interaction during the in-class lab sessions devoted to the

Wiki editing... The students became deeply involved in researching their subjects, and

spent the majority of their time writing, revising, and reorganizing the content of their

pages. Rather than focusing on the collective site, students were developing expertise in

their own domains, schema building as they integrated new information and later

sought connections between their work and other pages.


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

This observation suggested that the process of using the wiki, whichis often promoted as collaborative, could still be quite useful for engag-ing individual learners with the research material. The wiki supportedknowledge acquisition and transformation of information gatheredfrom the library and external resources. Finally, the researcher con-cluded (p. 4):

…the majority of the students demonstrated ease with the material in oral presenta-

tions of their Wiki sites to the class. Unlike oral reports on cultural topics in previous

classes, the presentations in this class were done entirely without notes as students

spoke confidently about their area of expertise. The sociocultural notion of internaliza-

tion provides a means of describing the manner in which learning occurred in the

course of the project….It seems quite likely that by working with the authentic mate-

rial, transforming and manipulating it to create their own Wiki sites, students were able

to internalize a great deal of information.

The learners communicated more confidently about the research topicsand subject matter, and thus, their grade performance improved.

Bossewitch, Frankfurt, Sherman, and Kelley (2008) proposed three sim-ple questions when deploying a wiki to 80 undergraduates in a BlackMovements in the US course at Columbia University (pp. 44�45):

1. What is a wiki?2. How do you teach with a wiki?3. What is the point of a wiki, that is, how do the collaborative composi-

tion experiences of [the] students compare with notable collaborationsfrom history?

The findings from the social justice case study were also insightful.Wikis, in the opinion of the three authors, created the “essence of engage-ment” amongst students, and between students and faculty. The authorssuggested a new ideal category of wiki: a platonic wiki � one where “every-one can see anything that has been published, can edit anything they cansee, and can easily create a new page” (p. 49). Of course, this ideal is actu-ally governed within each instance of a wiki type by business and technicalrules, policies for interaction, and workflow processes that are applied tothe content. Each wiki instance predicates different learner experiences andinteraction models, and the experiences can vary across deployments of thesame product in the same course or different courses. The flexibility of thewiki environment and social interface, (coupled with the imaginations ofthe learners), minimized the deterministic results that might be prescribedby a specific product.


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

In the Columbia University case, Bossewitch et al. (2008) divided 80learners into groups of three to four. The goal was simple: build a websitethrough learner collaboration that described critical social justice move-ments in New York City. The learners were asked to explore the (p. 53):

� broader political vision(s) of each of these movements (what they aretrying to accomplish),

� the context for their emergence,� their strategies and tactics,� the impact they have had on the communities they serve as well as on

struggles for social justice as a whole, and� the kind of support they need to sustain the work they are doing.

Interviews and historical library research were necessary, using the wikias a repository for working collaboratively. Moreover, the instructorneeded to review and furnish feedback to the learners over the course ofthe semester. Kelley identified four key benefits of using the wiki in asocial justice context (Bossewitch et al., p. 55):

1. The ability to introduce a new technology into the course with minimaltechnical training.

2. The ability for students to work collaboratively.3. The ability for [the instructor] to provide feedback throughout the

semester.4. The ability for [the instructor] to monitor the student projects and

ensure they were being constructed collaboratively.

As groups were fleshed out in detail, the learners developed an ad hoctaxonomy of categories to describe the different types of activism repre-sented by each organization. The bottom up approach promoted agree-ment amongst the learners in order to achieve a grade that was based onindividual and team negotiation, discussion, and consensus. The result wasthe construction of collaborative stakeholders where the learners couldimmediately detect the result of their effort. Bossewitch et al. (2008, p. 55)concluded that:

…wikis are well suited for collaborative projects where the intended outcome is a cohe-

sive whole as opposed to a collection of independent or loosely related ideas.

Wikis are also a good tool for iteratively developing ideas over time, allowing colla-

borators to revise and reorganize their contributions as themes emerge.


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Finally, the authors proposed evaluation criteria for a wiki-based proj-ect that could be applied in other cases:

1. Grade the content of each activist organization’s home page.2. Grade the groups’ responses to instructor feedback during the semester.3. Assess the level of collaboration within each team.4. Assess the aesthetic of each organization’s home page and subpages to

support learning about the organization described.

Level of collaboration and aesthetic were not defined by a rubric withinthe reported case.

Another case presented some insightful conclusions. In Wang et al.(2005), a statistically derived analysis concluded that gender and editingusage do not appear to have significant effect upon exam scores. Theauthors indicated they were not implying that causality existed betweenediting usage and learning improvement; and additional research alongthese lines should be supported.

Finally, a case was described at the University of Illinois at Chicagowithin two graduate level courses: Introduction to Communication Research(Comm 500) and Seminar in Media Studies (Comm 502). Elfving andMenchen-Trevino (2008, p. 137) posed two questions within the context oftheir case description that will ring true to any instructor wishing to experi-ment with a wiki in the classroom:

1. Why did the same group of UIC students choose to use a wiki in oneclass only to disregard it in another?

2. What factors contribute to the successful incorporation of a wiki intothe graduate classroom?

The results were a skeptic view of wikis within HE, and the need fortesting for other hypotheses (p. 143):

…the wiki was not used actively in Comm 500, it was a mismatch of the technology

and the circumstances rather than a failure of the technology or the people involved.

…The [Comm 500] course simply didn’t present a task requiring wiki collaboration…

the teaching styles of the professors and the nature of the assignments … shaped the

wiki. …minor differences in the nature of the classroom and the relationship between

students may result in radically different usage. …attempts to replicate the Comm 502

environment would be challenging, if not fruitless… A better approach lies in simply

making collaborative tools like the wiki available for student use. Vibrant collaboration

via wiki can emerge, given the right circumstances, but this collaboration can’t be forced

[italics added].


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Changing Role of Teaching and Teachers

From an educational context, Conole and Alevizou (2010, p. 12) describedWeb 2.0 tools and technologies from two dimensions: transformation andevolution:

…transformation [italics added], in terms of transcending formal educational contexts;

evolution, [italics added] in terms of facilitating more informal and non-formal learning

contexts which blur the boundaries between categories of learners (student, adult-

learner, or informal learner…). …learners are now able to become more active produ-

cers, authors, evaluators and commentators within the learning arena they are engaged

with.

Thus, wikis, by their very nature, appear to change learning, learners,and teachers in, heretofore, unanticipated ways. Wikis incorporate meth-ods that many authors assert stimulates constructivist learning. Everett(2011) in a Business Communications course discovered that if the purposeof using a wiki is to enhance grade performance, then that might not bethe best application (p. 9):

� four (44%) of the weekly assignments showed an increase in earnedpoints as compared to previous classes;

� two (22%) showed a decrease in scores; and� one (11%) showed no change in grades.

Such results may not be the encouragement an instructor is searchingfor when considering the use of a wiki in a course.

Hadjerrouit (2011) suggested that important pedagogical issues mightbe aggravated by the use and architecture of the wiki. Hadjerrouitdescribed three cases associated with a collaborative writing (cowriting)approach to MediaWiki use by three student teams who wrote on (p. 582)

(a) Information technologies and learning in secondary education;(b) Data security and privacy for young computer users; and(c) Food and health issues and the link between them for all categories of

people.

Through self-evaluation and peer review, Hadjerrouit discovered that awiki tool, by itself, was not motivating enough to keep the attention ofthe students and the functionality of the MediaWiki tool did notsupport working collaboratively. The learners’ “contributions to collabo-rative writing indicate a low level of engagement, shortcuts in information


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

analysis, heavy use of information found on Wikipedia and Internet,poor writing and integration strategies, insufficient systematic testing, andlack of deadline awareness” (p. 584). However, this was not the onlyshortcoming.

The students did not follow the phases of the collaborative writingapproach. The researcher discovered that the students needed significantcoaching and guidance to be able to collaborate successfully. Collabora-tive writing is labor intensive and challenging to students who may notpossess higher order academic skills and cannot make critical judgmentsabout information content. The use of the wiki elicited the shaping ofknowledge based on the relationships of the participants. If learners hadnot been exposed to and trained in active participative and collaborativepractices, then the use of a wiki would fail because of the incompatibil-ity of individualistic, egoistic practices with participative and collabora-tive practices. Hadjerrouit’s study suggested a consequent need totransform instructors from the “sage on the stage” to the “guide on theside” (Bassis, 2008); and that wikis could be useful in facilitating such atransformation in order to move teachers to the constructivist learningparadigm.

Bruns and Humphreys (2007) discovered that leaving open the topicsfor an assignment for first and second-year undergraduate students hin-dered their capability to focus on a subject. Alternatively, the authors ofthe study constructed teams of two students who would select topics froma predefined list. In addition, a more sophisticated approach to assessmentneeded to be developed for the collaboration element (p. 7):

� Over time: collaboration throughout project period,� Across team: communication and dialogue while collaborating in wiki,� Edit history [that] shows continuous work in updating content in the

weeks before the assignment due date,� Comments on the entry page used highly effectively and regularly to

enhance collaboration on content development.

Of course, this approach to assessment differed significantly from tradi-tional assessment of group work on a project, but parallel to an assessmentapproach developed by Reo (2006). Not surprisingly, without this uniqueapproach, students often will do their group work singularly, and withinonly a few days of the assignment due date. Again, the two authors sug-gested that wikis were a key example of moving traditional learning fromthe ‘sage on the stage’ model, to the ‘guide on the side’ model, since a wiki


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

“invites users to become active co-producers of [course] content” (p. 8). Aninsightful contradiction was uncovered when:

students noted the irony of being asked to work within a wiki environment in this sub-

ject, while in some other subjects lecturers were still warning them against using the

Wikipedia as a reference for their assignments. This points to a more general question

about the academic establishment’s response to user-led knowledge bases… (p. 9)

Finally, Bruns and Humphreys (2007) suggested that wikis had a criticalrole in teaching, based on their experiences. The development of practice-based tools and exercises for knowledge production in a digital environ-ment would be a critical success factor in preparing students to integratethemselves into the emerging knowledge-based economy, instead of findingthemselves at a disadvantage. Regardless, inconclusive studies do exist thatconclude “students enjoyed working in groups but they do not believegroup works have better quality neither that they learned more working inteams than if they worked by themselves” (Coutinho & Bottentuit Junior,2007, p. 1).

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

According to most of the studies reviewed in this investigation, the integra-tion of wikis with learning experiences can demonstrate new and insightfullearning experiences and changes in learner behavior. However, accordingto many of the authors, a significant investment by the instructor isrequired to become intimately familiar with the opportunities as well aslimitations that a wiki affords as a complex instructional strategy and tool.Instructors need to allocate rarely available time and effort in leading thelearners by example, since just “letting learning happen” has been proven aquagmire for wikis. Finally, using a wiki requires the development andapplication of new rubrics. Instructors need to allocate significant time toevaluate and assess a grade for each learner in a wiki-mediated class.

During the analysis of the different studies, the authors synthesized anumber of useful conclusions that consistently demonstrated the successfulapplication of wikis in HE. The following descriptions provide a strongfoundation for taking unique and original steps in the future study of wikisin HE. For convenience and organization, the authors broke down the con-clusions into the five categories of Conole and Alevizou (2010) (see Table 2).

The natural future direction should be based on a deeper analysis onresearch questions and of the experiences and expectations that learners


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Table 2. Synthesized Conclusions.

# Category Conclusion

1. Theories of learning Wikis support social constructivist approaches to learning

and sensemaking, whether it is e-learning, project-based

learning, or traditional classroom-based learning

Application of a wiki in the classroom does not consistently

enhance grades

Wikis will not work with passive learners

Engaged wiki-based collaboration emerges from the learner

interaction, and cannot be forced

Assessment of experiential wiki activity must form a

substantial component of overall evaluation and grading,

or the learners will not remain engaged and motivated

2. New forms of learning Anecdotal evidence suggested that learners who might not

otherwise finish a traditional course successfully

demonstrated adequate learning to pass the course if a

wiki was involved

Wikis, by their very nature, do not appear to be

deterministic � every wiki instance can stimulate differing

learner experiences and interactions, regardless of whether

the course or tool are the same or different

Notable learning improvements based on experiential

approaches were reported, including enhanced writing

performance, strengthened self-organization skills, and

improved team-based interaction

Significant value could result from including nonclassroom

participants in the wiki, although many learners were

more reticent and cautious with their writing when

outsiders participated

3. Patterns of technology use Wikis must demonstrate a rich user interface and access to

internal and external web-based material, facilitated by

easily deployed hyperlinking, as well as the capability to

identify orphaned and broken links

Successful evidence of collaborative and personal learning

was reported, when wikis accommodated multimedia

material, significant collaborative interaction, alerts, RSS

web-feeds, and rich text and object formatting

Learners found the repository function of wikis to be useful

as a container for locating the most current version of

material and an historical archive

Wikis demonstrated limited report presentation capability,

requiring learners to export the information to other tools

in order to prepare an acceptable final deliverable

Access control must be facilitated through simple group,

user, and page restrictions in order to ease administrative

requirements


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Table 2. (Continued)

# Category Conclusion

Concept-based (semantic) search tools would be much more

effective than a text search tool

Logging histories of additions, modifications, and deletions

should be maintained for potential catastrophic failures or

to shore up nefarious, sabotage activities

Additional functionality, such as calendaring, scheduling,

tight email integration, and integrated blogging will need

to be developed by software firms in the near future to

keep the interest to learners

4. Characteristics

of learners

Learners could acquire significant, solitary, self-learning by

focusing on solving a wiki-enabled problem, so better

collaboration is not always the outcome

Different styles of writing necessitate different types of wiki

pages: material repository pages, discussion forum pages,

commenting pages, assignment instruction and review

pages, and deliverable feedback pages

Rigorous conventions for page formatting, proofreading,

grammar, and spelling checking, and file naming were

useful to increase consistency and quality in applying

multimedia and text to a deliverable

Openness and transparency within a collaborative

environment demonstrated positive outcomes in a number

of studies, which challenged the typical classroom

environment were personal privacy of information often

reigns

5. Changing role of

teaching and teachers

Instructors must become informed about the typology of

wikis, (resource wiki, presentation wiki, gateway wiki,

simulation wiki, or illuminated wiki), in order to apply the

correct wiki tool to a learning strategy

Rich, frequent, high quality, feedback by the instructor

increased student engagement and speed of acquisition of

new learning and knowledge

Training through instructor-led coaching in terminology,

active participation, and collaborative practices was a

critical to success in the classroom

Learners and instructors encountered audit trail difficulties

when changes were applied to the wiki, since the

attribution of an addition, changes, or modifications

to a specific learner could be no more specific than a

wiki page


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

encounter when applying wiki technologies to support learning. In futureresearch, the chapter authors intend to review the corpus assembled inmuch more detail to ascertain particular trends and other bibliometricsthat might become evident through a more thorough investigation.Although ambitious, the authors propose to explore more deeply the fol-lowing research questions during further investigation of wikis in learningand teaching environments:

� Q1: What are the unique characteristics of applied wiki technologies,methods, and tools?

� Q2: What are the theoretical foundations reported by the authors forwiki success?

� Q3: What are the major outcomes (benefits and strengths) to learnersand educators, respectively?

� Q4: What are the issues, problems, disadvantages, concerns, and barriersof using wikis within an experiential context?

� Q5: What are the top 10 research questions that appear throughout themajority of studies?

� Q6: Which wiki technologies, methods, and tools could be recommendedfor particular learning strategies and activities?

The authors previously studied wikis within the context of the emergingfields of Knowledge Management/Knowledge Mobilization (KM/KMb)and also intend to investigate the potential relationships between KM/KMb and wikis in HE (Alavi, 2010/2011; Gonzalez-Reinhart,2005; Sarraf-zadeh, Hazeri, & Sutton, 2009b, 2010b; Raman et al., 2005; Wagner,2004). Wikis are representative of KM technologies and tools, and thus,KM models and frameworks could prove useful in the continued analysesof exemplary cases.

REFERENCES

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A hand-

book for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Barton, M. (2008). Is there a wiki in this class? Wikibooks and the future of Higher Education.

In R. Cummings, & M. Barton (Eds.), Wiki writing: Collaborative learning in the college

classroom (pp. 175�193). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved

from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=dcbooks;idno=5871848.0001.001;

rgn=div1;view=text;cc=dcbooks;xc=1;g=dculture;node=5871848.0001.001%3A6

Bassis, M. S. (2008). From teaching to learning: Moving from the “Sage on the Stage” to the

“Guide on the Side”. Westminster Matters, 5(1), 1–11.


http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=dcbooks;idno=5871848.0001.001;rgn=div1;view=text;cc=dcbooks;xc=1;g=dculture;node=5871848.0001.001%3A6


(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Bossewitch, J., Frankfurt, J., Sherman, A., & Kelley, R. D. G. (2008). Wiki justice, social

ergonomics, and ethical collaborations. In R. Cummings, & M. Barton (Eds.), Wiki

writing: Collaborative learning in the college classroom (pp. 44�70). Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-id

x?c=dcbooks;idno=5871848.0001.001;rgn=div1;view=text;cc=dcbooks;xc=1;g=dculture;

node=5871848.0001.001%3A4

Bruns, A., & Humphreys, S. (2007). Building collaborative capacities in learners: The

M/Cyclopedia Project, revisited. In Proceedings of the 2007 international symposium on

wikis (WikiSym ‘07). New York, NY: ACM. Retrieved from http://www.wikisym.org/

ws2007/_publish/Bruns_WikiSym2007_MCyclopedia.pdf

Chickering, A. W. (1977). Experience and learning: An introduction to experiential learning.

New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press.

Christensen, C., & Eyring, H. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher

education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cohn, M. (2006). Agile estimating and planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Professional.

Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In R. B. Davis, C. A. Maher &

N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist views on the teaching and learning of mathematics

(Vol. Monograph 4, pp. 107–124). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics.

Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of web 2.0 tools in higher edu-

cation. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy. York, UK: Higher

Education Academy.

Coutinho, C. P., & Bottentuit Junior, J. B. (2007). Collaborative learning using Wiki: A pilot

study with master students in educational technology. In Portugal World Conference

on Education Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Ed-Media 2007).

(pp. 1786�1791). Retrieved fromhttp://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/

6720/1/Edmedia2007.pdf

Cubric, M. (2007). Wiki-based framework for blended learning. In Proceedings of the 2007

international symposium on wikis (WikiSym ‘07). New York, NY: ACM. Retrieved

from http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Cubric_WikiSym2007_BlendedLearning

Framework.pdf

Cubric, M. (2008). Agile learning & teaching with wikis: Building a pattern. In Proceedings of

the 4th international symposium on wikis (WikiSym ‘08) (Article 28, 2p.). New York,

NY: ACM.

Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. Euro-

pean Journal of Open, Distance and Elearning, Volume II. Retrieved from http://www.

eurodl.org/index.php?article=228. Accessed on January 10, 2012.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.),

Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford:

Pergamon.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2008). Management research: Theory and

practice (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Elfving, D., & Menchen-Trevino, E. (2008). One wiki, two classrooms. In R. Cummings, &

M. Barton (Eds.), Wiki writing: Collaborative learning in the college classroom

(pp. 137�143). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from http://

quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=dcbooks;idno=5871848.0001.001;rgn=div1;

view=text;cc=dcbooks;xc=1;g=dculture;node=5871848.0001.001%3A5





















http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Bruns_WikiSym2007_MCyclopedia.pdf

http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Bruns_WikiSym2007_MCyclopedia.pdf

http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/6720/1/Edmedia2007.pdf

http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/6720/1/Edmedia2007.pdf

http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Cubric_WikiSym2007_BlendedLearningFramework.pdf

http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Cubric_WikiSym2007_BlendedLearningFramework.pdf

http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?article=228























(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Evans, C. (2005). Exploring wiki-based project learning in foreign cultures and literatures.

Presented at the proceedings of the DigitalStream conference at California State Univer-

sity. Monterey Bay, CA. Retrieved from http://php.csumb.edu/wlc/ojs/index.php/ds/

article/viewArticle/78

Everett, D. C. (2011). Wikis as a student collaborative tool. In Proceedings of the information

systems educators conference 2011 ISECON. (Vol. 28, No. 1601). Wilmington NC:

EDSIG (Education Special Interest Group of the AITP).

Fabos, B., & Young, M. (1999). Telecommunication in the classrooms: Rhetoric versus real-

ity. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217–259.

Ferris, S., & Wilder, H. (2006) Uses and potentials of wikis in the classroom. Innovate, 2(5).

Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol2_issue5/Uses_and_Potentials_

of_Wikis_in_the_Classroom.pdf

Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2006). From Wikipedia to the classroom: Exploring online publi-

cation and learning. In Proceedings of the international conference on the learning

sciences (Vol. 14, pp. 182-188). Bloomington, IN. Retrieved from http://www.andrea-

forte.net/ForteBruckmanFromWikipedia.pdf

Fuchs-Kittowski, F., & Kohler, A. (2002). Knowledge creating communities in the context of

work processes. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 23(3), 8–13.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies Blogs and Wikis: Environments for on-line

collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12�16, Retrieved from http://llt.

msu.edu/vol7num2/pdf/emerging.pdf

Gonzalez-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language

Learning & Technology, 1(2), 50�65. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/

article3/default.html

Gonzalez-Reinhart, J. (2005, February). Wiki and the wiki way: Beyond a knowledge manage-

ment solution. Houston, TX: University of Houston - Information Systems Research

Center.

Grant, L., Owen, M., Sayers, S. & Facer, K. (2006). Social software and learning. [Opening

Education Reports]. Bristol, UK: Futurelab. Retrieved from http://archive.futurelab.

org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Social_Software_report.pdf. Accessed

on January 10, 2012.

Gravett, S., & Petersen, N. (2002). Structuring dialogue with students via learning tasks.

Innovative Higher Education, 26(4), 281–291.

Guth, S. (2007). Wikis in education: Is public better? In Proceedings of the 2007 international

symposium on wikis (WikiSym ‘07). New York, NY: ACM. Retrieved from http://

www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Guth_WikiSym2007_IsPublicBetter.pdf

Hadjerrouit, S. (2011). Co-writing development approach to wikis: Pedagogical issues

and implications. In World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (Vol. 77,

pp. 579�586). Availalbe at http://www.waset.org/proceedings.php

Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New

Media Consortium.

Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience

in management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2),

137–149.

Klobas, J. (2006). Wikis: Tools for information and collaboration. Oxford: Chandos

Publishing.


http://php.csumb.edu/wlc/ojs/index.php/ds/article/viewArticle/78

http://php.csumb.edu/wlc/ojs/index.php/ds/article/viewArticle/78

http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol2_issue5/Uses_and_Potentials_of_Wikis_in_the_Classroom.pdf

http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol2_issue5/Uses_and_Potentials_of_Wikis_in_the_Classroom.pdf

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

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

http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/pdf/emerging.pdf

http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/pdf/emerging.pdf

http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article3/default.html

http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article3/default.html

http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Social_Software_report.pdf

http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Social_Software_report.pdf

http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Guth_WikiSym2007_IsPublicBetter.pdf

http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/_publish/Guth_WikiSym2007_IsPublicBetter.pdf

(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and develop-

ment. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Krauss, R., & Fussell, S. (1991). Constructing shared communicative environments.

In L. Resnick, J. Levine & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition

(pp. 172–200). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lindeman, E. C. (1961). The meaning of adult education in the United States. New York, NY:

Harvest House.

Mader, S. (2008). Wikipatterns: A practical guide to improving productivity and collaboration in

your organization. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty.

Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Novak, J. & Patterson, E. (1998). Just-In-Time teaching: Active learner pedagogy with

WWW. In J. Gil-Mendieta & M. H. Hanza (Eds.), Proceedings of the IASTED Interna-

tional Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education (CATE ’98).

May 27�30, Cancun, Mexico. Anaheim, CA: IASTED/ACTA Press. (pp. 130�133).

O’Reilly, T. (2005). Web 2.0: Compact Definition? Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/

archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html. Accessed on on May 2, 2012.

Parlett, M., & Hamilton, D. (1972). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of

innovation programmes. [Occasional Paper. Edinburgh, UK: Centre of Research in Edu-

cation Sciences, University of Edinburgh]. (re-published in R. Murphy & H. Torrance

(Eds.), Evaluating education: Issues and methods (pp. 57�73). London: Harper and Row.

Phillipson, M. (2008). Wikis in the classroom: A taxonomy. In R. Cummings & M. Barton

(Eds.), Wiki writing: Collaborative learning in the college classroom (pp. 19�43). Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/

cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=dcbooks;idno=5871848.0001.001;rgn=div1;view=text;cc=dcbooks;

xc=1;g=dculture;node=5871848.0001.001%3A4

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.

Reo, R. (2006). Scaffolding student collaboration for group wiki projects. In S. Mader (Ed.),

Using wiki in education (pp. 34�40). Providence, RI: S. Mader. Retrieved from http://

www.wikiineducation.com. Accessed on May 2, 2007.

Sarrafzadeh, M., Hazeri, A., & Alavi, S. (2011). The status of Web 2.0 in Iran’s LIS educa-

tion. Education for Information, 28, 1–13.

Schroeder, B. (2008). Within the wiki: Best practices for educators. Presented at the Educause

Western Regional Conference. Retrieved from http://wikipanel.pbwiki.com

Silverstein, D. (2009). Improving student learning by encouraging reflection through class

wikis. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Conference (AC2009-

493), Austin, TX. Retrieved from http://www.engr.uky.edu/Baseeched/papers/2009/

493_IMPROVING_STUDENT_LEARNING_BY_ENCOURAGIN.pdf

Soy, S. K. (1997). The case study as a research method: Uses and users of Information � LIS

391D.1 � Spring 1997. [Unpublished Paper]. Retrieved December 1, 2001, from Uni-

versity of Texas, Graduate School of Library and Information Science Web site: http://

www.gslis.utexas.edu/Bssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm.

Sutton, M. J. D., McFarland, C., Sanchez, N., & Vuyovich, J. (2012). Using coaching our-

selves as a management development tool in an experiential MBA course: A case study


http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_compact_definition.html




http://www.wikiineducation.com

http://www.wikiineducation.com

http://wikipanel.pbwiki.com

http://www.engr.uky.edu/&sim;aseeched/papers/2009/493_IMPROVING_STUDENT_LEARNING_BY_ENCOURAGIN.pdf



http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/&sim;ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm



(C) E

merald

Group P

ublis

hing L

imite

d

in applying reflection as a learning strategy for enhancing engagement. International

Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 2(1), 8–17.

Sutton, M. (2009a). Project-based, competency-based, blended program innovation in a learner-

centric BBA degree. Paper presented at the Canadian Network for Innovation in Edu-

cation (CNIE) 2nd Annual Conference, Ottawa, ON.

Sutton, M. (2009b). A manifesto for the preservation of organizational memory associated

with the emergence of KM educational programs. In J. P. Girard (Ed.), Building orga-

nizational memories: Will you know what you knew? (pp. 225–243). Hershey, PA: IGI

Global.

Sutton, M. (2010a). Coaching as a knowledge mobilization framework within BBA (and MBA)

educational programs: Presentation on practice. Paper presented at the 7th International

Knowledge Management Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.

Sutton, M. J. D. (2010b). Preliminary research context for investigating the use of wikis

as knowledge management tools to project management-based initiatives. In

T. K. Srikantaiah, M. E. D. Koenig & S. Hawarden (Eds.), Convergence of project man-

agement and knowledge management (pp. 122–141). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Thomas, P., & Minocha, S. (2007). Using a wiki to facilitate learning on a requirements engi-

neering course. In Proceedings of the higher education academy’s eighth annual confer-

ence, August 2007. (pp. 28-30). University of Southampton. Retrieved from http://oro.

open.ac.uk/16202/

Thomas, P., King, D., Minocha, S., & Taylor, J. (2008). Wikis supporting authentic, collabo-

rative activities: Lessons from distance education. In Rethinking the Digital Divide. Uni-

versity of Leeds, UK. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/16200/1/Pages_from_

altc2008_research_proceedings%2D2.pdf

Tselios, N., Altanopoulou, P., & Katsanos, C. (2011). Effectiveness of a framed wiki-based

learning activity in the context of HCI education. In Proceedings of the 2011 15th pan-

hellenic conference on informatics (PCI ‘11) (pp. 368�372). Washington, DC: IEEE

Computer Society.

Vie, S., & deWinter, J. (2008). Disrupting intellectual property: Collaboration and resistance in

wikis. In R. Cummings & M. Barton (Eds.), Wiki writing: Collaborative learning in the

college classroom (pp. 109�122). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=dcbooks;idno=5871848.

0001.001;rgn=div1;view=text;cc=dcbooks;xc=1;g=dculture;node=5871848.0001.001%3A5

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A technology for conversational knowledge management and group

collaboration. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 265–289.

Wang, H.-C., Lu, C.-H., Yang, J.-Y., Hu, H.-W., Chiou, G.-F., Chiang, Y.-T., & Hsu, W-L.

(2005). An empirical exploration of using wiki in an English as a second. In Proceedings

of the 5th IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies. Retrieved

from http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Bhaochuan/manuscripts/Wang_etal_ICALT_05.pdf

Warschauer, M. (1998). Interaction, negotiation, and computer-mediated learning. In M. Clay

(Ed.), Practical applications of educational technology in language learning. Lyon,

France: National Institute of Applied Sciences.

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.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed., Vol. 5). Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage.


http://oro.open.ac.uk/16202/

http://oro.open.ac.uk/16202/

http://oro.open.ac.uk/16200/1/Pages_from_altc2008_research_proceedings%2D2.pdf

http://oro.open.ac.uk/16200/1/Pages_from_altc2008_research_proceedings%2D2.pdf



















http://www.cs.cornell.edu/&sim;haochuan/manuscripts/Wang_etal_ICALT_05.pdf

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/&sim;haochuan/manuscripts/Wang_etal_ICALT_05.pdf

sutton - using the wiki as an experiential learning tool to engage students

Documents

emerald publication

emerald subscription

new wiki technologies

teachingand learning

wiki concept

anexperiential learning

research evidence

instructional technology