Student S Co-Construction of Group Project Work Via Twiki

11

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:

JOHN NGAI CHEUNG

Hong Kong International School, Hong Kong
E-mail:

lisa duan yang ma and david wilck ka wai leung

The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong
E-mail:,

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.

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 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 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.

Survey Questions / BSc students:
Mean; Median
(95% CIa)
(N2 = 41) / MSc students:
Mean; Median
(95% CI a)
(N1 = 20) / Results from Mann-Whitney test:
p-value#
­  Improvement in collaboration through the use of wiki b / 3.3; 3.0 (3.1-3.6) / 3.2; 3.3 (2.7-3.7) / 0.928
­  Improvement in quality of the group work through the use of wiki b / 3.2; 3.0 (2.9-3.4) / 3.2; 4.0 (2.7-3.8) / 0.522
­  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”.