The World Wide Web has become quite the intricate spider's web since its original web-based read-only functionality. Today's read-write Web functions how its developer, Tim Berners-Lee, intended it to exist in a participative, co-creation, editorial and collaborative workspace (digital commons) among users (Lamb, 2004 as cited in West & West, 2009).
The focus of this blog is on the use of wikis as a form of technology integration for adult teaching and learning, however, if you wanted to explore and/or social network with other arachnid lovers you might choose to visit Wikipedia to learn more. Wikipedia is the most well-known wiki and anyone with web access and capabilities can contribute and edit this free online multi-lingual encyclopedia (West & West, 2009). The ability for anyone to add, remove, and/or change the site has caused great controversy for its use as a credible resource (West & West, 2009).
Today's adult learners are seeking more social interaction and experiences in their instruction and by incorporating a web-based technology tool such as the wiki educator's can assist in enriching the students learning environment, assist is developing valuable connections among peers, and achieving acceptable student learning outcomes (Beldarrain, 2006 as cited in West & West, 2009).
When considering the implementation of a technology tool such as the wiki I believe it is important to consider the pros and cons that the tool presents and how to make the experience worthwhile. In review of the literature, I will list some common themes mentioned.
Pros
The wiki is designed as a tool for collaboration that offers learners meaningful, interactive, and collaborative opportunities (Bonk et al., 2009 as cited in King & Cox, 2011). This tool is offered as a free service and requires basic technologic skills to create, update, and maintain allowing learners to focus on the collaboration piece versus the technical difficulties (Kirkpatrick, 2006 as cited in King & Cox, 2011). In higher education, the wiki process allows learners to experience a deeper level of learning through their own knowledge construction and experiences while participating in co-writing with others (Boulos, Marambal, & Wheeler, 2006 as cited in King & Cox, 2011). This inquiry-based format of instruction fosters critical thinking skills and facilitates life-long learning (Freeman, Holmes, & Tangney, 2001 as cited in Kelsey, Lin, Franke-Dvorak, 2011).
Cons
Where there are pros to using a new tool there comes limitations. The wiki as mentioned early allows multiple users to access, edit, and remove shared information and/or post inappropriate and irrelevant content (King & Cox, 2001). When using the wiki as a co-writing tool it is important to check spelling, as this tool lacks this capability. In using a wiki as an educational tool it is important for faculty to consider the lack of control on content posted and etiquette being used to establish specific expectations or ground rules (King & Cox, 2011).
References:
Kelsey, D.|Lin, K., & C., T. (2010, November 30). A Longitudinal Study to Determine If Wiki Work Builds Community among Agricultural Adult Education Students. Retrieved April 3, 2019, from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ955696
King, K. & Cox, T. (2011). The professor’s guide to taming technology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
West, J. and West, M. (2009). Using Wikis for online collaboration: The power of the read-write Web. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
CLH,
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
I really do appreciate you touching on ground rules. I think that something so simple as setting expectations creates an opportunity for a good start in the learning environment. Everyone knows what is expected and acceptable, and they are easy to refer to if someone breaks them to bring people back on track.
Co-writing and collaboration, while creating growth and skill building, can also contribute to stress and can sometimes cause problems when there is no perceived leadership. Sometimes multiple people step up to lead, which can lead to conflict, or everyone holds a nebulous stance and keep wandering the same circular path, not finding real direction. The best collaborative projects are those that allow for everyone to list and contribute their strengths from their unique experiences. Sure, there will be issues and sometimes conflict, but even so there is always opportunity for growth.
Again, great observations!
JaiMenon,
ReplyDeleteI am amazed in today's classroom the necessity of establishing such ground rules and expectations for assignments and behavior, even simple ethical/integrity aspects, have to be addressed not just verbally but in writing. The challenges these learners present can be exhausting at times. Sometimes it comes down to the verbal discussion does not hold much value so the syllabus becomes quite lengthy.
I have been very fortunate in my educational journey when assigned to groups that collaborate effectively and completing tasks equally. I do believe every group needs a person to sometimes take the lead to at least get everyone engaged and moving forward.
Thank you for visiting.
Thanks CLH,
DeleteIn many ways I feel that ground rules and expectations need to be implemented as soon as possible. I have been in public meetings where individuals have gone out of control, talking over others, browbeating them or even taking over the conversation by interrupting others to take back control. When there are no rules to point to it is hard to say "let's be respectful" (something that everyone feels is implied I think) when no one agreed to be in the first place. This is why moving forward I always made sure that we touched on ground rules before the conversation started. That way you can point to the collective rules if things get out of hand. I guess you cannot operate on what is implied, which is unfortunate.
I appreciate your attention to the limitations of wikis as a tool as well. The spell check point is so basic, but at the same time so important for presenting reputable and trustworthy information (and, making sure that search functions work appropriately!). The lack of control as a con is also something I find personally challenging, but is definitely in the realm of necessary evil when it comes to wikis. The benefits of greater individual contributor controls and creativity are only made possible through the stepping back of professor control. However, I think in all instances there is still space for monitoring and removing any inappropriate or inaccurate content from final products, whether through self-moderation within the group of contributors, or by a leader who reviews all newly made edits. Which style works will be in part limited by the size of the wiki, and number of contributors and edits being made (I.e., something on the scale of Wikipedia can only be edited through group moderation, since there is so much content to review on a constant basis).
ReplyDelete