Student S Co-Construction of Group Project Work Via Twiki

STUDENT’S CO-CONSTRUCTION OF GROUP PROJECT WORK VIA TWIKI

SAMUEL KAI-WAH CHU Division of Information and Technology Studies, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong E-mail:[email protected]

JOHN NGAI CHEUNG Hong Kong International School, Hong Kong E-mail:[email protected]

LISA DUAN YANG MA and DAVID WILCK KA WAI LEUNG The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong E-mail:[email protected], [email protected]

This paper reports on a comparison of undergraduate and postgraduate students’ experience in using TWiki, a knowledge management enabling tool to co-construct group project work. It examines the following areas: (1) whether TWiki helps improve students’ level of collaboration and the quality of their group project work; (2) whether TWiki facilitates knowledge creation and sharing; and (3) whether using TWiki is better or worse than, or as good as the traditional ways of doing group projects, such as using Microsoft Word. Results indicate that both groups of students had positive experience in using TWiki to do their group project and they found TWiki better than Microsoft Word for doing group project work.

1. Introduction Wiki is a Hawaiian word meaning quick (Lamb, 2004), and wiki software is so named because it combines reading and writing within a web browser, allowing for easy editing of text, as well as easy creation and linkage of web pages. For this reason, wikis are commonly used as knowledge management tools to facilitate the creation, sharing, discussion and revision of knowledge artifacts in group projects (Da Lio et al. 2005). Wiki software has also been applied in various ways in education, including support for writing individual and group projects, course management and distance education (Bold, 2006; Parker & Chao, 2007). Some teachers have even used wikis as tools to co-create teaching materials (Da Lio et al., 2005). Of the various wiki software, TWiki is considered as the flagship by some researchers (Ebersbach et al. 2006), and it serves well as a project development space, a document management system and a knowledge base for intranets or the Internet (TWiki, 2007). This paper explores the effectiveness of applying TWiki to facilitate student group work at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It also compares the similarities and differences between the two groups of students in their experiences on using TWiki for their group projects.

D:\Docs\2018-04-11\02ded636abb52332c41313904bcd66ff.doc 2

2. Literature Review Constructivism has been regarded as a leading theory in learning since the 1980s and 1990s, overtaking behaviorist and information-processing perspectives (cited in Liu and Matthews, 2005). It states that “Learners learn by experimentation, and not by being told what will happen. They are left to make their own inferences, discoveries and conclusions. It also emphasizes that learning is not an ‘all or nothing’ process but that students learn the new information presented to them by building upon knowledge that they already possess” (schoolnet.com, 2008). Due to this learning theory, curriculums worldwide (at tertiary, secondary, and primary levels) changed gradually from exam- based to project-based learning in the past two decades. Under this new learning approach, students have more freedom in selecting their research topics, finding relevant sources for their enquiries, and coming up with new knowledge as the result of their projects. Since wiki can facilitate not only collaboration but writing and publishing as well, its application in education has become increasingly popular in recent years (Richardson, 2006). Applications include support for writing individual and group projects, course management and distance education (Bold, 2006; Parker & Chao, 2007). Moreover, some teachers have used wikis software as a tool for creating teaching materials collaboratively (Da Lio et al., 2005). Past researches on the use of wiki software in education focused on four main areas: the rationale for using wikis (Engstrom & Jewett, 2005; Lamb, 2004); collaborative learning and writing using wikis (Bold, 2006; De Pedro et al. 2006; Nicol et al. 2005); knowledge building and management using wikis (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005; Da Lio et al., 2005); and sharing and structuring of information using wikis (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005; Da Lio et al., 2005; Nicol et al., 2005). As an open-source technology, wiki provides an online workspace where thousands of web users volunteer their time and knowledge to provide the world with a high-quality encyclopedia in their native languages (Tapscott, 2006). In education, wiki allows students and teachers to co-construct personalized texts in their communities (Richardson, 2006). Researchers have frequently reported positive experiences of using wikis to facilitate collaborative learning and knowledge building (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005; Bold, 2006; Nicol et al., 2005), which are seen as constructive processes that call for deep constructivism where people “identify problems of understanding, establishing and refining goals based on progress, gathering information, theorizing, designing experiments, answering questions and improving theories, building models, monitoring and evaluating progress” (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003, p. 1371). The writing of a group assignment is an excellent example of knowledge building. Bold (2006) employed wiki to support the completion of assignments and course management among students of an online Master’s degree programme. Not only did the students report greater convenience and better connection with the use of wiki, but they also showed an improvement in their online technology skills. In De Pedro et al. (2006)’s study on using wiki as a platform for university students’ group projects, it was found that the wiki methodology saved time in areas such as final checks of work before submission, group meetings and avoidance of writing similar content. In a recent study (Chu, in press), TWiki was found to be an effective tool in facilitating students’ collaboration in their group projects at the undergraduate level. The undergraduate students have reported a general improvement in their quality of work through better

D:\Docs\2018-04-11\02ded636abb52332c41313904bcd66ff.doc 3 collaboration on TWiki. However, few articles have compared the use of TWiki between different levels of study. Besides, no articles seem to have examined whether wiki is particularly useful to part-time students as they cannot meet other group members as frequently as can full-time students. This study attempts to fill these literature gaps through detailed comparison between the use of TWiki by undergraduates and postgraduates. Most of the latter were part-time students.

3. Research Method The main research questions of this study are: i. Is TWiki effective in facilitating student group work at undergraduate and postgraduate levels? ii. What are the similarities and differences between the use of TWiki at undergraduate and postgraduate levels? iii. Is TWiki particularly useful to part-time postgraduate students who have less chance to meet their classmates face-to-face than undergraduate students? In an attempt to address these questions, TWiki was used in both undergraduate and postgraduate courses where students, mostly in groups of three to five, were asked to conduct a small research project and compile a report using TWiki based on their group project work. The lecturer designed Wiki templates for the students’ projects which could be modified by students according to their needs. The TWiki online workspace consists of three parts, namely “Progress”, “Discussion”, and “Report”. “Progress” is a page created for students to write their draft reports, whereas the “Report” page is for the finalized reports. Students are free to discuss any issues relating to their projects on the “Discussion” page. The templates for “Progress” and “Report” are initially identical; students then modify them in accordance with the design of their group report. See Figure 1 for an example of the “Progress” and “Discussion” online template.

Fig 1. TWiki template for “group progress” and “group discussion”.

Questionnaires and interviews were conducted to examine the effectiveness of TWiki in facilitating students’ group project work. Forty-one undergraduates (full-time BSc students) studying the course Knowledge management responded to the

D:\Docs\2018-04-11\02ded636abb52332c41313904bcd66ff.doc 4 questionnaires. As only a small proportion of students were male (7 out of 41 students), the gender effect is not examined in this study. In the questionnaire, six questions used a 5-point Likert scale, and a few were open-ended questions. Additionally, 38 BSc students commented on the effectiveness of TWiki as an enabling technology for knowledge management. Similar questionnaires and interview questions were also given to 21 postgraduates (MSc students – mostly part-time students) studying the course Information Behavior. The data of BSc and MSc students were compared to examine differences between the effectiveness of TWiki at different levels of study. The log data of both the undergraduates and postgraduates were retrieved through the TWiki web page to examine how frequent each student used TWiki. From the log data, it was found that one postgraduate did not use TWiki at all. Because he did not actually use TWiki, the comments of this student were excluded from the statistical analysis. The data were analyzed using SPSS (Windows version 16.0). For each survey question that requires ratings, one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and histogram were used to test the normality of students’ ratings. Since the results showed that the normality of data was questionable (p < 0.05 in Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and skewed histograms), non-parametric tests were used. Ratings in the survey questions were compared between the BSc and MSc students using the Mann-Whitney test. Possible correlations were explored among the key items examined (e.g. between improved collaboration and enjoyment in using TWiki). A 5% level of significance was used in all statistical tests in the study. For the open-ended questions, comments with similar meaning were grouped together and analyzed using NVivo version 7.0.

4. Findings and Discussion The results from the survey with both groups of students were generally positive, which point out the positive effect and perceived importance of TWiki as a tool in facilitating better student group work, letting students collaborate closely with each other and sharing knowledge on a web-based platform. No significant difference was found between the comments from BSc students and MSc students, indicating that TWiki could be seen as an effective tool for group projects at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels of study. This section presents a detailed evaluation on the effectiveness of TWiki to support student group projects based on ratings from the survey. Comparisons were made between BSc and MSc students and also among more frequent and less frequent users of TWiki. The correlations between surveyed items were also examined. This analysis will be followed by a discussion on the capability of TWiki as a knowledge management tool in group work. This section will end by presenting a qualitative analysis of the positive and negative comments given by the students for both TWiki and Microsoft Word.

4.1. Effectiveness of using TWiki to support student group projects Students responded to the questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate the effectiveness of using TWiki. As shown in Table 1, nearly all the mean scores of students’ ratings were above 3.0, indicating that they found TWiki quite effective in facilitating their group projects. The ratings given by MSc students and BSc students were compared to examine the possible differences between them.

4.1.1. Improved collaboration and improved quality of group reports

Both the MSc students and the BSc students highly rated (mean scores of 3.2 and 3.3 respectively) the use of TWiki in improving collaboration among group members. No significant difference was found between the two groups of students, suggesting that both found TWiki to be quite effective in facilitating their group projects by providing them an open workspace. For improved quality of group reports, it received a mean rating of 3.2 from both groups. The lack of difference between these two ratings suggests a general improvement of quality of group reports, despite the difference in their levels of study. Student MSc 8 commented that “TWiki allows us to modify our work on the same platform at the same time, which helps us to avoid individual mistakes.” An earlier study (De Pedro et al., 2006) showed that large groups with more than 15 members obtained a better grade using the Wiki method. Our findings indicate that the Wiki method could also be beneficial to smaller groups.

4.1.2. Ease of using TWiki and enjoyment in using TWiki

The mean scores of the ratings are 3.0 and 3.2 respectively from the MSc and BSc groups. Again, there is no significant difference between these two mean scores. The ratings suggest that both groups of students find it relatively easy to use TWiki in their group projects. This concurs with Foley’s study (2006) that a web of related information can be easily created by generating pages and adding linked content in wiki systems. There was no significant difference in enjoyment levels between MSc and BSc students in using TWiki. Generally speaking, the average ratings for enjoyment were lower than other surveyed items. Student MSc 3 pointed out that formatting their work in TWiki was time-consuming and Student MSc 19 mentioned difficulties in posting materials. These comments suggest that there is still room for improvement regarding the features and functions of TWiki for enhancing students’ enjoyment in using it.

Table 1. Student responses on the use of TWiki.

BSc students: MSc students: Results from Mean; Median Mean; Median Mann- Survey Questions (95% CIa) (95% CI a) Whitney test: # (N2 = 41) (N1 = 20) p-value Improvement in collaboration 3.3; 3.0 (3.1-3.6) 3.2; 3.3 (2.7-3.7) 0.928 through the use of wiki b Improvement in quality of the group 3.2; 3.0 (2.9-3.4) 3.2; 4.0 (2.7-3.8) 0.522 work through the use of wiki b Ease of using TWiki c 3.2; 3.0 (3.0-3.5) 3.0; 3.0 (2.5-3.5) 0.453 Enjoyment in using TWiki b 3.2; 3.0 (2.9-3.5) 2.9; 3.0 (2.4-3.4) 0.373 TWiki as a suitable tool b 3.5; 4.0 (3.2-3.8) 3.6; 3.5 (3.2-4.0) 0.857 Notes: a CI stands for confidence interval calculated from the given sample set. It is an estimated range of plausible values of the true value, or the true mean of the population. A 95% CI means that there is a 95% probability that one will find the true value in the estimated range. The width of the CI indicates the reliability of the estimation. A narrower CI indicates more reliable result than a wider CI (Dalgaard, 2002). b The respondents answered according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”. c The respondents answered according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “very difficult” and 5 as “very easy”. # Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the scores given by MSc and BSc students.

4.1.3. TWiki as a suitable tool for doing group projects Again, no significant difference was found between the ratings from MSc and BSc students. Both groups strongly agreed that TWiki is a suitable tool for doing group projects (mean scores of 3.6 and 3.5 respectively). According to Student MSc 13, TWiki is a good platform that allows members to check up on the latest work progress at the same time and therefore it is suitable for them to co-construct their work. It is noteworthy that one of the groups with four members in the postgraduate course encountered many problems in uploading their work to TWiki and their ratings for TWiki were therefore negatively affected by the technical problems they encountered. Follow- up interviews were conducted with these four students and they were asked to rate the items again while assuming that there were no technical problems. Statistical analysis was launched again using the ratings of these four students. The mean rating on each surveyed item given by these students became higher. This implies that TWiki could be more beneficial to students if they encounter less technical problems.

4.2. Comparison between frequent and less frequent users of TWiki To examine whether frequent and less frequent users will hold different opinions about TWiki, students are divided into three groups, more frequent users, moderately frequent users and less frequent users. The ratings of more frequent users and less frequent users are analyzed (see Table 2). For BSc students, although no significant difference is found, the more frequent users generally gave lower ratings than the less frequent users. For MSc students, significant differences between more frequent users and less frequent users are found in two surveyed items. Students who used TWiki frequently gave significantly lower ratings for the use of TWiki in improving the quality of their work than those who seldom used it (p=0.031).The ratings for enjoyment in using TWiki given by the more frequent users are also significantly lower than that given by the less frequent users (p=0.044). Similar results are found when the ratings of both BSc and MSc students are compared and significant differences are noted in three of the surveyed items. The more frequent users gave significantly lower ratings for the use of TWiki in improving the quality of their work (p=0.029). The ratings for enjoyment in using TWiki given by the more frequent users are also significantly lower than that given by the less frequent users (p=0.036). In addition, ratings on TWiki as a suitable tool given by students who used TWiki more frequently are significantly lower than that given by the less frequent users (p=0.043). The findings seem to suggest that increased experience in using TWiki leads to lower ratings. This is reasonable in a sense that students with limited experience in using TWiki might have imagined TWiki to be a perfect tool for group projects. When students became more familiar with TWiki, the fascinating myths about TWiki were shattered and replaced by their more realistic perception of TWiki. Therefore, students using the tool frequently might find it less useful than what they originally believed.

Table 2. Comparing students’ ratings on TWiki by their frequency in using it.

More Frequent Users Less Frequent Users Results from Mean; Median Mean; Median Mann-Whitney Survey Questions (95% CI) (95% CI) test: p-value 1 BSc students : (N1 = 14) (N2 = 14) - Improved collaboration using wiki a 3.2; 3.0 (2.9-3.7) 3.3; 3.5 (2.7-3.9) 0.961 - Improved quality using wiki a 2.9; 3.0 (2.4-3.3) 3.2; 3.0 (2.7-3.8) 0.321 - Ease of using TWiki b 3.2; 3.0 (2.8-3.6) 3.4; 3.5 (2.9-3.8) 0.548 - Enjoyment in using TWiki b 3.1; 3.0 (2.6-3.6) 3.6; 4.0 (3.0-4.1) 0.159 - TWiki as a suitable tool b 3.4; 3.0 (2.9-3.8) 3.7; 4.0 (3.2-4.2) 0.165

2 MSc students : (N1 = 6) (N2 = 5) - Improved collaboration using wiki a 2.3; 2.5 (1.1-3.6) 3.5; 3.5 (2.9-4.1) 0.089 - Improved quality using wiki a 2.2; 2.0 (1.0-3.4) 3.9; 4.0 (2.8-5.0) 0.031* - Ease of using TWiki b 3.3; 3.5 (2.1-4.6) 3.0; 3.0 (2.1-3.9) 0.634 - Enjoyment in using TWiki b 2.2; 2.0 (1.1-3.2) 3.2; 3.0 (2.6-3.8) 0.044* - TWiki as a suitable tool b 3.1; 3.0 (2.6-3.6) 3.8; 4.0 (2.8-4.8) 0.107 3 Overall : (N1 = 20) (N2 = 19) - Improved collaboration using wiki a 3.0; 3.0 (2.6-3.5) 3.3; 3.5 (2.9-3.8) 0.314 - Improved quality using wiki a 2.7; 3.0 (2.2-3.1) 3.4; 4.0 (2.9-3.9) 0.029* - Ease of using TWiki b 3.3; 3.0 (2.9-3.6) 3.3; 3.0 (2.9-3.6) 0.904 - Enjoyment in using TWiki b 2.8; 3.0 (2.4-3.2) 3.5;3.0 (3.1-3.9) 0.036* - TWiki as a suitable tool b 3.3; 3.0 (2.9-3.6) 3.7;4.0 (3.3-4.1) 0.043* Notes: 1 From the 41 BSc students, 14 students who used TWiki for 16 times or more were grouped as the relatively more frequent users, 14 students who used TWiki for 1 to 5 times were grouped as the less frequent users, and the remaining 13 students were grouped as the moderate frequent users. 2 From the 20 MSc students, 6 students who used TWiki for 20 times or more were grouped as the more frequent users, 5 of them who used TWiki for 1 to 8 times were grouped as the less frequent users, and the remaining were grouped as the moderate frequent users. 3The more frequent users from BSc and MSc students were grouped together to form the new group of more frequent users and the less frequent users from both group of students were grouped together to form the new group of less frequent users. a The respondents answered according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”. b The respondents answered according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “very difficult” and 5 as “very easy”. * Ratings from Group 1 and 2 were significantly different as shown by the Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level.

4.3. Correlations between surveyed items The data collected from the students are further analyzed to examine relationships between the variables. Significant correlations are found between a numbers of variables. The correlation coefficients and the p-value of the significant correlations at 5% level of significance are presented in Table 3. For BSc students, significant correlation is found between improved collaboration and four other variables: (1) improved quality of group reports (r = 0.389, p = 0.012); (2) ease of using TWiki (r = 0.382, p = 0.014); (3) Enjoyment in using TWiki (r = 0.544, p < 0.001); and (4) TWiki as a suitable tool for doing group projects (r = 0.571, p < 0.001). This indicates that while the use of TWiki enhanced collaboration among group members, the quality of their work and their enjoyment level in using TWiki were also improved. The collaboration between group members was improved when students found TWiki easy to use, and they would find TWiki as a suitable tool for doing group projects. Enjoyment in using TWiki is found to be positively correlated with three other varibles:

(1) improved quality of group reports (r = 0.462, p = 0.002); (2) ease of using TWiki (r = 0.518, p = 0.001); and (3) TWiki as a suitable tool (r = 0.583, p < 0.001). In other words, students tended to enjoy using TWiki more when they found it able to improve the quality of their reports and easy to use. Students would consider TWiki as a suitable tool for doing group projects when they enjoyed using it. Interestingly, a significant negative correlation is found between frequency of using TWiki and improved quality of group reports (r =-0.353, p = 0.024). This is consistent with the findings in the previous section that frequent users found TWiki less useful than less frequent users. For MSc students, it is found that the improved collaboration had a significant positive correlation with the improved quality of group reports (r = 0.650, p = 0.002). This indicates that while the use of TWiki enhanced collaboration among group members, the quality of their work was also improved. There is a significant positive correlation between the enjoyment in using TWiki and improved collaboration (r = 0.656, p = 0.002). In other words, enjoyment in using TWiki increased while collaboration between group members increased. Enjoyment in using TWiki is also found to be positively correlated with improved quality of group projects (r = 0.705, p = 0.001). The statistically significant strong correlation indicated that students’ level of enjoyment in using TWiki is closely related to the improvement in their group reports. Significant positive correlations are found between TWiki as a suitable tool and (1) improved quality of group reports (r = 0.539, p = 0.014); (2) enjoyment in using TWiki (r =0.718, p < 0.001). It could imply that students found TWiki a suitable tool for doing group projects as they perceived improvement in the quality of their reports and when they enjoyed using TWiki. A significant negative correlation is also found between frequency of using TWiki and improved quality of group reports (r =-0.487, p = 0.029). The results are largely similar when the ratings of both BSc and MSc students are considered together. Significant correlations are found between improved collaboration and four other variables: (1) improved quality of group reports (r =0.507, p < 0.001); (2) ease of using TWiki (r =0.259, p = 0.044); (3) enjoyment in using TWiki (r =0.592, p < 0.001); and (4) TWiki as a suitable tool (r = 0.502, p < 0.001). Besides, enjoyment in using TWiki is found to be positively correlated with (1) improved quality of group reports (r =0.555, p < 0.001); (2) ease of using TWiki (r = 0.487, p < 0.001) and (3) TWiki as a suitable tool (r =0.606, p < 0.001). Interestingly, negative correlations are found between frequency of using TWiki and (1) improved quality of group reports (r =- 0.380, p = 0.003); (2) enjoyment in using TWiki (r =-0.292, p = 0.022). This is again consistent with the previous findings that more frequent users gave significantly lower ratings for TWiki in improving the quality of their work and enjoyment in using TWiki.

Table 3. Significant correlations between variables.

Variables Pearson Correlation Coefficient p-value (r) BSc students (N=41): 1. Improved collaboration vs. 0.389 0.012 Improved quality of group reports 2. Improved collaboration vs. 0.382 0.014 Ease of using TWiki 3. Improved collaboration vs. 0.544 <0.001 Enjoyment in using TWiki 4. Improved collaboration vs. 0.571 <0.001 TWiki as a suitable tool 5. Enjoyment in using TWiki vs. 0.462 0.002 Improved quality of group reports 6. Enjoyment in using TWiki vs. 0.518 0.001 Ease of using TWiki 7. TWiki as a suitable tool vs. 0.583 <0.001 Enjoyment in using TWiki 8. Frequency of using TWiki vs. -0.353 0.024 Improved quality of group reports MSc students (N=20): 1. Improved collaboration vs. 0.650 0.002 Improved quality of group reports 2. Improved collaboration vs. 0.656 0.002 Enjoyment in using TWiki 3. Enjoyment in using TWiki vs. 0.705 0.001 Improved quality of group reports 4. TWiki as a suitable tool vs. 0.539 0.014 Improved quality of group reports 5. TWiki as a suitable tool vs. 0.718 <0.001 Enjoyment in using TWiki 6. Frequency of using TWiki vs. -0.487 0.029 Improved quality of group reports Overall (N=61): 1. Improved collaboration vs. 0.507 <0.001 Improved quality of group reports 2. Improved collaboration vs. 0.259 0.044 Ease of using TWiki 3. Improved collaboration vs. 0.592 <0.001 Enjoyment in using TWiki 4. Improved collaboration vs. 0.502 <0.001 TWiki as a suitable tool 5. Enjoyment in using TWiki vs. 0.555 <0.001 Improved quality of group reports 6. Enjoyment in using TWiki vs. 0.487 <0.001 Ease of using TWiki 7. TWiki as a suitable tool vs. 0.394 0.002 Improved quality of group reports 8. TWiki as a suitable tool vs. 0.606 <0.001 Enjoyment in using TWiki 9. Frequency of using TWiki vs. -0.380 0.003 Improved quality of group reports 10. Frequency of using TWiki vs. -0.292 0.022 Enjoyment in using TWiki Note: According to Ravid (1994), a correlation with r = 0.2 – 0.39 is considered as a low correlation, a correlation with r = 0.4 – 0.59 is regarded as a moderate correlation and a correlation with r = 0.6 – 0.79 is regarded as a strong correlation.

4.4. TWiki as a knowledge management tool Thirty-eight BSc students and 20 MSc students commented on TWiki as an enabling tool for knowledge on a 5-point Likert. Two aspects of knowledge management, namely knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, were examined in the questionnaire. According to Stuhlman (2006), knowledge creation is “a process that results in new knowledge” (Knowledge creation section, para. 1) and knowledge sharing is a process of “exchange of knowledge” (Sharing section, para. 1). As shown in Figure 2, both MSc and BSc students rated TWiki positively for the two aspects and the average ratings range from 3.5 to 4.2.

Ratings on TWiki as a Knowledge Management Tool

4.0 e r o

c 3.0 BSc students S

n 4.2 MSc students a 2.0 3.8 3.9 e 3.5 M 1.0

0.0 Knowledge Creation Knowledge Sharing Aspects of Knowledge Management

Note: The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”.

Fig 2. Student’s ratings on knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.

The ratings of BSc students and MSc students are analyzed by Mann-Whitney test to examine any possible differences. No significant difference is found between the two groups of students. This suggested that students at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels considered TWiki as a useful tool in knowledge management.

Comparing students’ ratings on knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, students gave significantly lower ratings to knowledge creation (p < 0.001). This indicates that in students’ perspective, TWiki could work most effectively to provide a platform for them to share knowledge and information. According to Student MSc 1, TWiki allows for effective communication which helps with the interaction between group members and improvement of one’s work. The openness of different groups’ work also facilitates brainstorming and knowledge sharing. Another student, MSc 13, stated that TWiki is a convenient tool for knowledge creation and the design of the platform also allows excellent knowledge sharing.

4.5. Using TWiki in the future The implementation of TWiki does not only facilitate a short-term student group project, but it also has long-term effects on students. In the survey, 37 BSc students and 20 MSc students responded on the possibility of adopting TWiki for future work and/or personal usage (see Figure 3 and 4).

BSc students' responses on using TWiki in the future MSc students' reponses on using TWiki in the future

22% 20% 51% Yes Yes No 55% 27% 25% No Depends Depends

Note: The data is collected from 37 BSc students and 20 MSc students.

Fig 3. (left) BSc students’ responses on using TWiki for work and personal reasons in the future. Fig 4. (right) MSc students’ responses on using TWiki for work and personal reasons in the future.

Figure 3 shows that 51% of the BSc students (19 out of 37) would consider using TWiki for work and personal usage in the future. Among the BSc students, 22% (8 out of 37) expressed that the use of TWiki in the future depends on other factors, such as the nature of the task and the working organization’s practice. The remaining 27% of the BSc students (10 out of 37) believed that they would not use TWiki in the future. A main reason is that they were not sure how to apply TWiki in other situations. This suggests that students need more training on TWiki so that they know the ways in which they can transfer their knowledge of using it on an academic project to a work related project or personal task. For the MSc students, 55% (11 out of 20) would continue to use TWiki in the future for either work or personal usage while 20% (4 out of 20) believed that the use of TWiki in the future depends on other factors such as other group members’ IT knowledge. Similar to BSc students, 25% (5 out of 20) of the MSc students believed that they would not use TWiki in the future. Overall, more than half of the students would continue to use TWiki in the future. The results show that students are in favour of this new technology and would consider using it on their own. This implies that TWiki is not only beneficial to short-term group projects, but also to the long-term development of the students.

4.6. Comparison between TWiki and Microsoft Word Students’ responses to the open-ended questions in the survey were qualitatively analyzed in regards of their opinions on TWiki and Microsoft Word (see Table 4) for creating a group report. Similar to the findings of section 4.1, students consider TWiki as an effective tool to facilitate their group project work with 49%a (20 out of 41) BSc students and 50% (10 out of 20) MSc students mentioned that TWiki is effective in facilitating collaboration in their group work. Among the MSc students, 50% (10 out of 20) also said that TWiki is useful for knowledge sharing and 40% (8 out of 20) expressed that TWiki facilitates communication within group. However, 65% (13 out of 20) MSc students claimed

a Since students’ comments on the effectiveness of TWiki in facilitating their group works were collected through an open-ended question on a comparison between TWiki and MS Word, not all students gave a remark regarding this. This also applies to students’ comments on other items in this section.

D:\Docs\2018-04-11\02ded636abb52332c41313904bcd66ff.doc 12 ifficulty in formatting on TWiki and 20% (4 out of 20) pointed out that it is time- consuming to learn about the new tool. Both groups of students gave some positive comments to Microsoft Word, but the number of positive comments was a lot fewer when compared with TWiki. Among the BSc students, 20% (8 out of 41) mentioned that they could format their work easily with MS Word and 30% (6 out of 20) MSc students expressed that they are highly familiar with MS Word. Regarding the more negative comments, 17% (7 out of 41) BSc students pointed out that MS Word only works well for individual task and 20% (5 out of 20) MSc students said that they need to rely mainly on e-mail in transferring files among the group members. It is noteworthy that in general MSc students had a less pleasant experience with TWiki and they gave more negative comments than BSc students with regard to this wiki tool. Among the MSc students, 65% (13 out of 20) mentioned difficulty in formatting while only 12% BSc students (5 out of 41) noted this problem. Besides, 20% MSc students (4 out of 20) expressed that it is time-consuming to learn about TWiki but only 10% (5 out of 41) BSc students did. This is contrary to the researchers’ original belief that the part-time MSc students would find TWiki more useful since they have less chance to meet and TWiki can supplement their face-to-face discussion and physical workspace with an online work environment. A possible explanation for MSc students’ less positive experience with TWiki is that most of them were busy with their careers and they could not devote as much time as the full-time BSc students to familiarize themselves with TWiki. Besides, the MSc students are older (25 to 35 years old) than the BSc students (around 20 years old). In general, younger people are well-versed with new technology and therefore the BSc students could become familiar with TWiki quickly. In addition, as mentioned earlier, a particular group of MSc students encountered many uploading problems in TWiki. This had certainly affected their comments on the effectiveness of TWiki.

Table 4. Positive and negative comments given by BSc and MSc students to TWiki and MS Word. TWiki Traditional way for group project - MS Word Positive Comments (No. of Students): BSc students  Facilitates collaboration of group work  Easy formatting (8) (20)  More advanced functions (5)  Able to keep track of others’ working  User-friendly interface (4) progress (7)  Higher familiarity (3)  Facilitates knowledge sharing (7)  No networking problem (2)  Able to receive comments from others (6)  Able to work anywhere at any time (4)  Saves time (3)  Facilitates communication within the group (2)  Able to keep track of different versions (2)  Others (3) MSc students  Facilitates collaboration of group work  Higher familiarity (6) (10)  Able to work individually according  Facilitates knowledge sharing (10) to  Facilitates communication within the one’s own schedule (1) group (8)  Allows easier facilitation of work (1)  Able to keep track of others’ working  High Security of documents (1) progress (7)  The advanced MS Word has the  Able to work anywhere at any time same functions as TWiki (1) (7)  User-friendly interface (1)  Able to keep track of different versions (6)  Able to refer to other groups for learning (6)  Others (3) Negative Comments (No. of Students): BSc students  Difficulty in formatting (5)  Only allows individual work (7)  Time consuming to learn about the  Overdependence on sending editing tools (4) documents by emails (5)  Technical problems, e.g. server  Difficult to share with other people problem (3) (3)  Others (2)  Cannot track others' work progress (2)  Time consuming to combine members' work (2)  Others (1) MSc students  Difficulty in formatting (13)  Overdependence on sending  Technical problems, e.g. server documents by emails (4) problem (7)  Difficult to identity each member’s  Unfamiliar to use (5) contribution (3)  Time consuming to learn about the  Only allows individual work (1) editing tools (4)  Cannot compare with older versions  Difficult to use (3) (1)  Insufficient training provided (3)  Insufficient functions comparing to alternatives (2)  Not user-friendly (2)  Others (2) Note: Data collected from 20 MSc and 41 BSc students.

5. Conclusion and Implications Both undergraduate and postgraduate students found TWiki effective in supporting them to do their group project work. The students rated positively on the effectiveness of TWiki in improving collaboration among group members and in improving quality of the group work. They found TWiki relatively easy to use and they considered it as a suitable tool for doing group projects. Both student groups viewed TWiki as an enabling tool for knowledge management and they rated it positively in facilitating knowledge creation and knowledge sharing. The majority in both groups also indicated that they would continue to use TWiki in the future for either work or personal usage. Since this study shows that TWiki is helpful for group project work at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, it may also be useful for students in other levels of studies (e.g., secondary or even primary). Overall, the MSc students viewed TWiki less favorably when compared to the BSc students though most of the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. There could be three possible reasons that have caused the differences: (1). One MSc group encountered quite a lot of technical problems uploading their materials onto TWiki; (2). Most MSc students work full-time and so they have less time to learn new tools like TWiki and (3). MSc students, who are older than the BSc students, were less well-versed in new technologies. To enhance students’ experience with TWiki, it is foremost for software developers to fix the uploading problem and other problems reported in this article as soon as possible. Although both groups of students found TWiki better than the traditional tool (MS Word) in doing group project work, they pointed out quite a few desirable features in MS Word that are not available in TWiki. Besides, they found that it is easier to format their works in MS Word than in TWiki. Much work needs to be done in upgrading the functions and features of TWiki so that it can truly become an “ideal” tool for group project work online. Lastly, this study carries implication on training more mature and busy people, like the MSc students in the study, to become comfortable with a technological tool such as TWiki. They need more comprehensive, tailor designed training and assistance as they are less familiar with new technologies and they cannot afford much time to explore the tool by themselves.

References

Aumueller, D. (2005). Semantic authoring and retrieval within a Wiki. Paper presented at the European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC). Bold, M. (2006). Use of wikis in graduate course work. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17, 5-14. Bruns, A., & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment: The M/Cyclopedia project. . Paper presented the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis, San Diego, CA, U.S.A. Chu, S. (in press). TWiki for knowledge building and management. Online Information Review. Da Lio, E., Fraboni, L. L., & Leo, T. (2005). TWiki-based facilitation in a newly formed academic community of practice. Paper presented at the 2005 international symposium on Wikis. Dalgaard, P. (2002). Introductory Statistics With R. New York: Springer.

De Pedro, X., Rieradevall, M., López, P., Sant, D., Piñol, J., Núñez, Ll., Llobera, M. (2006a). Writing documents collaboratively in higher education using traditional vs. wiki methodology (II): Quantitative results from a 2-year project study. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress of University Teaching and Innovation. De Pedro, X., Rieradevall, M., López, P., Sant, D., Piñol, J., Núñez, L. (2006b). Writing documents collaboratively in Higher education using Traditional vs. Wiki methodology (I): Qualitative results from a 2-year project study. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress of University Teaching and Innovation. Ebersbach, A., Glaser, M., & Heigi, R. (2006). Wiki Web Collaboration. New York: Springer. Engstrom, M. E., & Jewett, D. (2005). Collaborative Learning: The wiki way. TechTrends, 49, 12-68. Foley, B., & Chang, T. (2006, April 10). Wiki as a professional development tool. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association annual meeting. Guzdial, M., Rick, J., & Kehoe, C. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher- created collaborative activities in Higher Education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 265-279. Lamb, A. (2004). Wide open spaces wikis ready or not. Educause Review, 39, 36-48. Liu, H. & Matthews, R. S. (2005). Vygotsky's philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6, 386-399. Nicol, D., Littlejohn, A., & Grierson, H. (2005). The importance of structuring information and resources within shared workspaces during collaborative design learning. Open Learning, 20, 31-49. Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a Teaching Tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57-72. Ravid, R. (1994). Practical statistics for educators. Lanham: University Press of America. Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designing knowledge management systems for teaching and learning with wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16, 311-320. Raygan, R. E., & Green, D. G. (2002). Internet Collaboration: TWiki. SoutheastCon, Proceedings IEEE, 137-141. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In Encyclopedia of Education, (Vol. 3, 1370-1373. New York: Macmillan Reference, USA. Schoolnet.com (2008). K12 Wiki - Constructivism (learning theory). Retrieved Feb 8, 2008 from http://www.schoolnet.com/Wikis/pages/wikiarticle.aspx?wikiid=1466 Stuhlman, D. (2006). Knowledge Management Terms. Retrieved Jun 26, 2008 from http://home.earthlink.net/~ddstuhlman/defin1.htm Tapscott, D., & Williams, A.D. (2006). Wikinomics: How Mass Colalboration Changes Everything. New York: Portfolio. TWiki (2007). TWiki - the Open Source Wiki for the Enterprise. Retrieved Dec 1, 2007 from http://twiki.org/

D:\Docs\2018-04-11\02ded636abb52332c41313904bcd66ff.doc