Posts Tagged ‘wikis’

Wiki Pedagogy in colour

So hot on the heals of the whole EduPunk rethunking, and to elaborate for our wiki paper, Luke suggested a diagram of what wiki pedagogy was in our course. So I’ve put together a first draft trying to demonstrate how things interconnect in our wiki teaching. There are a number of things that we do slightly differently from other work that I’ve seen.

I think the significant thing that we do differently is start with an empty wiki.  Okay, it’s not completely empty, but we only have the core course information in the wiki at day one.  We are developing a set of tutorials very similar to those found in WikiEducator, but modified for TikiWiki.

This means that students have to start the work. The idea is to get them thinking about how community development is facilitated by technology.  They must not only create the course ‘text book’, but they create the community of students who develop this.  I figure that this is an experience that is important — getting things off the ground without any assumption that things are already going, which I sense is a key thing for established LMS.  Everything is already there for the beginning of semester and all the students have to do is absorb.

But not in this course.  There is very little information about the content of the course.  There is some structure, and we’re getting better at putting this in place to guide students, but there really isn’t much.

Wiki Pedagogy

Wiki Pedagogy in Colour (Click for larger version)

The diagram shows some of the things that I think are important in the wiki course.  The Pedagogy is based on ideas about community of practice ideas[1], bringing novices from the peripheries to the centre, providing some pathways for developing knowledge and for developing collaborative workstyles. There’s also a theme of ‘students as designers’[2].  This is in contrast with developing group work practices, because while they are all working together, they are all working separately, so they are really only responsible for their own output, but can build upon the work of others, comment, critique and interact, but not depend on others.

In the diagram, all the tools in the Wiki Learning environment (well, most of them) are listed.  There are really two kinds of tools, which I’ve labeled knowledge production and collaborative.  The knowledge production are generally where thoughts and learnings come together.  These features generally allow the display of developing knowledge and includes images, pages and blogs.  There is generally space to develop an idea in words and pictures.  This is where we assess the more traditional demonstrations of knowledge.

Collaborative features are those that let students engage with one another.  There are comments (and this should probably include the forums, but these tend not to get used too much), private messages (where students send a message to one or more — kind of like email in the wiki) and the shoutbox which is like a open messaging system where a single message can be sent to all participants.  The students kind of like that because the shoutbox appears on every page, and quite often someone responds to them in the shoutbox.  It’s like a multi-threaded public conversation in short bursts.  Very twitterish, now that I think about it.

Essentially, students commence the course at the periphery and sometimes on the edges of the community.  Most of them are not well established in the field as we are almost presenting a new area (mobile workforce technologies).  We have IT students, marketing students, MBA students,    We see many of them move into the community of practice through active engagement with knowledge formation processes.  The CoP surrounds the wiki tools in the wiki learning environment. There is an embeddednes about the whole structure.  Everything happens in the wiki (with the exception of providing students with their passwords which we do through the gradebook of Blackboard.)

All of these features allow students to actively reflect on the processes of knowledge development and construction and maintain their activities in a single space.  It’s a whole environment wrapped up in free software.  You can’t get much better than that.

  1. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. []
  2. Kimber, K and Wyatt-Smith, C, (2006). Using and creating knowledge with new technologies: a case for students-as-designers, Learning, Media and Technology, 31 (1): 19–34 []

Tags: , , ,

And breathe

Well, that was interesting.

Two weeks left of semester.  All my plans of learning new things with the Designing for Flexible Learning Practice Course and Learning Ruby on Rails have come to naught under the weight of the Wiki Assignment and The Dreaded Excel Assignment.  I’m not sure where all my time goes, but it seems there is way too much spent on managing technology.  I’m even behind on reading my feeds.

But I’ve had a few interesting discussions lately.  One during a web services advisory meeting where we started to talk about video, got on to YouTube and ended up discussing the vagaries of txt spk.  It reminded me of the book I have had in mind to write for a while.  There seems to be a need for something that maps pedagogy onto process onto technology.  I’ve spoken to people about this mentioning mapping technology and pedagogy and seemed to get a negative response.  But the other day, someone at the meeting was talking about how we know what technology supports what kinds of learning and I said “That’s the book I want to write!”  The reply was a very positive: “That’s the book I want to read.”  That’s my plan for the next few months.  I think.  I’m going to try to think about all the things we try to do and all the technologies we currently have (or seem to be appearing on the horizon) and see whether I can come up with ‘flexible’ approaches to using the technology to achieve particular learning outcomes.  Whenever I have time, I’ll post something here to get my ideas down and hopefully next year, get some time off teaching to start putting it together.

The other interesting ‘discussion’ was between Luke (the co-convenor of the two of the wiki courses I teach) and me and we got very vocal and passionate about our ideas when after about 30 minutes we realised we were arguing the same point.  It seems that I know all this stuff about wikis and students don’t [true].   It seems that I need to structure the entry points for the courses better [I do].  Luke kept telling me how I was way up here and everyone else is way down there (picture, if you will, a big burly guy waving his arms up and down).  Meanwhile, I’m trying to tell him that we should modify the WikiEducator tutorials and put them into our course to meet the needs of our students.  I think we’ll be taking the editing and formatting pages and putting them somewhere for the students.  Where Luke and I are a bit vague is how to reward students for this.  They are skills the students need to complete the assessment so it could be worth 5% of their marks to complete them (and creating their own page in Blackboard in the process) or it could be they get access to the space (more wikis – just what I need) to submit their assessment.  I’m in two minds about this (classic sign of a gemini).  On the one hand, they are learning and demonstrating their learning, on the other hand, they will be assessed separately for how they submit their annotations in the assessment wiki.

Perhaps there is a compromise.  Perhaps we need to reward them for learning, but when it comes to the assessment item, detract marks for silly mistakes that they shouldn’t have made if they’ve done the wiki learning task.  That feels a bit like punishing them, but if we start from the assumption that they can do it and they have already been rewarded for achievement, we shouldn’t need to reassess that (except where it makes life difficult for everyone).  Given our recent experience with the simplified wikis in Blackboard, I’m inclined toward rewarding the learning task then detracting marks.  It’s way too easy for them to not care whether they’ve got it in the right place, whether they’ve deleted someone else’s work, whether it’s logical to put information about spreadsheets on a page named word-processors or even if the page name is important.

I suppose this will be a topic for another discussion with Luke.

Tags: , , ,

More about the wiki

What did I expect when I set out to get students to use the wiki? I dont think I really expected much. The minimum they had to do was create two pages and write at least 1500 words in the wiki (this for 40% of their grade). The two pages consisted on one technical page and one social/business application of technology page. I figured this would be a fair assignment, not requring too much effort, yet getting them involved in both learning processes and creating learning outcomes. They also had to journal their experiences of the wiki with some reflection on their learning (15% of their grade). The third aspect of assessment was styled participation and was to be extracted from the wiki. Participation in this case included every login, every update, every comment, private messages, blog posts, whatever they actually did. It gave a measurable value to their participation, something that I knew I could point to as ‘hard evidence’ of participation rather than the vague and subjective measures of classroom participation in face-to-face classes (I’ve always had a problem with these kinds of measures as students often conflate participation and presence). The only thing the wiki didn’t log was their movement around the site, what they read, etc. This would have given a clear indication of their vicarious participation/interaction which is clearly different from the more active forms of participation that we grade. But yes, the activities in the wiki accounted for 70% of their grades (the other 30% was development of a website, an assessment item I’m considering dropping in favour of a short exam, but I’ll get to that later).

So, I expected at least two pages to be created per student. I figured with the cap for this class to be about 30 students, that would result in probably 60 pages to assess. That seemed manageable, given that actually assessing the pages was something I had no idea how to do at the beginning, particularly given that I needed to be sure what each student was responsible for.

What did I get? Well, instead of 60 pages, I got nigh on 160 pages. Not all of the pages were good content and there seemed to be a tendency for students to ‘own’ them by signing them or in same way linking them to their perceived notion of output (I really need to examine all the pages individually to check this). Assessing the pages became a real headache as some were edited by only a single person while the most was 20, and oh bugger, my excel file has been corrupted. Will continue this anon.

Tags: ,

reflections of teaching with wikis

Im going to start posting some of my reflections from teaching with wikis based on my experience through the last semester. I probably should have been doing this as I went, but, I’m terribly slack at times.

I suppose I should start from the begining.

Preparing to teach with wikis

The hardest part of getting ready for this semester was getting an actual wiki running on uni servers. Everytime I spoke with someone, they said they could help and then pointed me to someone else. Had I not been on a particular committee, I don’t think it would ever have gotten off the ground.

But, seeing as I eventually found the right person, the wiki was up and running two weeks before semester started. I will admit, at this juncture, that I had never admin-ed a wiki before, and indeed had very little real experience with a live wiki on the web. Most of my previous experience was with TiddlyWiki which is a local wiki, that is, it runs on a computer within a browser. It is a java-based application and requires very little technology to get it running. However, the linking process and the ‘chunking’ of information available in TiddlyWiki provides an insight into the use of wikis, particularly the syntax for formatting and creating ‘tiddlers’ (chunked information). Seeing the potential of interlinking information was the impetus for embarking on the Wiki project.

So my experience is almost indicative of the average potential user of wikis within education. The majority of students and teachers (instructors, etc) have likely read wiki pages, most frequently in Wikipedia, but have not added content. Administering a wiki proved to be a steep learning curve although most tasks (such as adding users, updating pages, locking pages, setting the style sheet) were relatively simple. Understanding specific terminology for TikiWiki provided some challenge, particularly as, like most open source projects, the documentation was not developed for all features.

Hmm, in my next installment, I’ll talk about the mismatches between the course profile (that is, what I expected of students) and the actual participation. I still need to look at the frequency of visits by students, their patterns of interactions and come up with some questions for interviewing them (either face-to-face or by email).

Tags: ,

Oh … My … Gosh

I haven’t been around much lately. Semester is finally over and assessment of students’ participation in the wiki is about to start. The first student has submitted their journal. I was expecting maybe 5 pages. They needed to create at least 2-3 pages in the wiki.

This journal is 30 pages long (and that’s after I changed the line spacing to single). The student has worked on a total of 28 pages. This has so exceeded my expectation. I hope the others aren’t as dedicated as this student.

I need an analogy for this.

These students have taken to this like ducks to water.
These students have taken to this like starving children.

There has to be a better analogy. Got analogy?

Tags: , ,

Theme by RoseCityGardens.com
Modified by Me!