Jackson Intervention Study

8/7/2019 Jackson Intervention Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jackson-intervention-study 1/27

DMZ1130-0809

Researching Multimedia in Education

Tutor: Andrew Youde

Intervention Study

An Investigation into the effectiveness of using a wiki toteach project work in GCSE ICT

Student: U0870621

Nick Jackson





Intervention Study

Nick Jackson U0870621

GCSE ICT coursework. It is intended that the wiki will be a teaching and learning

community, a community of collaboration (Pixy Ferris and Wilder, 2006). It will focus

on one common goal- trying to achieve as higher grades as possible in the

coursework. The wiki was set up using pbwik i2

.

The study was done in a suburban, non-selective 11–18 secondary school. Although

the focus will be on one class of mixed–ability it is worth noting that students in the

school typically achieve high rates of GCSE passes. The aims that this study intends

to address are:

• To determine the value of wikis in supporting student coursework.• To evaluate the use of wikis in developing a community of collaboration (Pixy

Ferris and Wilder, 2006) between students and between students and the

teacher.• To determine how accessible the elements of a wiki are for students to use.• To determine the impact of using wikis on the role of the teacher.

The dates that the study was undertaken are from September 2008 to

February 2009. The outcome from the above aims will be sought with reference to

relevant literature on the use of Web 2.0 technologies in particular wikis. Similar research studies will be specifically discussed as will the research methodology used

in this intervention study.

Literature Review

There is considerable support for wikis as a learning tool. The emphasis is on

participants creating an online community, sharing ideas and as wikis are contentdriven, collaboration is at the centre of this community ideal (Engstrom and Jewett,

2007). Given the hypertext tools available on wikis and the ease of use these provide

in content management they provide a very effective online database (Matias, 2003).

In a case study by (Hewling, nd), the use of wikis to support the activities of a

university research department were examined. The objective of using the wiki was

to collect information in an accessible location for all involved. The wiki provided an

2 http://pbwiki.com/ a free, hosted wiki

3

http://pbwiki.com/

http://pbwiki.com/

http://pbwiki.com/



Intervention Study


opportunity for sharing of information and research findings from work done in the

department by its researchers. One of the advantages of using a wiki for the

department was the ease with which they could access content periodically i.e. it

became a very useful reference tool.

It must be noted that the Hewling study was conducted in Higher Education whereas

this study is based in Secondary. Despite the differences that arise from studies in

such different learning environments, there are two major worthwhile observations

that I intend my use of a wiki to also witness. Firstly, Hewling reflected in the JISC

study:

The wiki can function as a…repository of useful information so that

inexperienced students…can be pointed at a single source for answers to

many of their questions

(Hewling nd, page 4)

Given the mixed–ability students in the class who will be using the wiki created for

this intervention study, it is anticipated that how the wiki was used for ‘inexperienced

students’ can be applied to lower-ability students. Secondly, the subjects of both

mine and the JISC study were largely working in the same place for a considerable

amount of time and Hewling points out the benefits were seen in terms of

exchanging information. This he refers to as ‘augmenting communication’. The JISC

study explains that there was little need for using Web 2.0 technologies with this

group on a social level as they tended to do that face-to-face yet the wiki was

worthwhile in terms of work-related communication exchanges.

Lund and Smordal (2006) undertook research based on use of a wiki with the older

age groups of a secondary school. Their research subjects are comparable to theages of students participating in this intervention study. One of their major areas of

interest and reasons for using a wiki was what they referred to as ‘collective

cognition’ and ‘collective knowledge building’. This seems to extend beyond just

seeing wikis as being useful for their collaborative elements, previously cited by

Harrison (2008), Engstrom and Jewett (2007) and Pixy Ferris and Wilder (2006).

Lund and Smordal’s thoughts outlined how a collective repository of thoughts and

insights into a subject area can be constructed and the value of using a wiki in this

process.

4



Intervention Study


Other parallels between Lund and Smordals research and this intervention study is

how the wiki was brought into the classroom and used out of lesson time plus the

extensive discussion they have as regards the teacher’s role when using thetechnology. Hewling (nd) does not really focus on these factors as they are not

particularly relevant to their objectives.

Lund and Smordal provide quite an in-depth look at the way students used the wiki,

their contributions and the interactions between the members of this online

community. One observation of particular note is that the students:

preferred to go on creating extensions indefinitely at the expense of rewriting,

improving and editing one’s own or a classmate’s contribution. Learners did

not immediately embrace any notion of collective ownership or epistemology

but continued a practice where the institutionally cultivated individual

ownership persisted. Consequently, the teacher intervened

(Lund and Smordal 2006, page 41)

In other words, contributions were of quite an individual nature among the students

in their research, until the teacher intervened. There were very few amendments toeach other’s work/pages or comments on content submitted. Instead students

seemed to instinctively want to use the wiki to add their own content on their own

pages. This seems to question some of the ideology of collaborative working and this

practitioner wants to see if participants behave in the same manner using the pbwiki

created.

As regards a teacher’s function when a wiki is being used, the issue of control and a

teacher playing the role of being the knowledge–provider, Lund and Smordal’s study

came to some interesting conclusions. They refer to a traditional teaching role as

being an ‘autonomous knower’, somebody who is expected to provide the

information, the insight, questions and answers for students to learn from. Yet a wiki

challenges this role. If it is to be used as a collaborative community, a view

supported by Lamb (2004), ‘the medium works most effectively when students can

assert meaningful autonomy over the process’. A teacher’s position therefore has to

change. The premise of control over the learning experience has to be passed over

5



Intervention Study


at least partly if not totally to the learners. The learning comes from the sharing and a

wiki provides the tools to allow this to happen. By adding pages, discussion points,

posts, relevant materials, etc and crucially in the view of Lund and Smordal-

amending and revising each other’s contributions, the whole community learns. Iintend to examine these points in the use of the wiki created in this study.

Methodology

As an educational practitioner that very much sees himself as open wherever

possible to technological innovations that can ultimately be conducive to improvedlearning (Jenkins,1999), I cannot conceal my bias in wanting technology to solve

issues. As previously stated, GCSE ICT Coursework is notoriously difficult. While

concurring with the view that action research is educational enquiry, (McNiff, Lomax,

Whitehead, 2003), I have seen a way that wiki technology can assist teaching and

learning, research methodology should then give insight into the degree of success

this has.

Although there are a number of models one can follow in respect of action research

and how to apply it, in this study I referred to a quite simplistic model shown in Figure

1:

Figure 1 : The insights gained from the initial cycle feed into planning of the second cycle, for which the actionplan is modified and the research process repeated (Riding, Fowell and Levy, 1995).

6



Intervention Study


Thus overall, on application of this model, the intention is that the use of the wiki in

the context of GCSE ICT coursework is the first cycle and from this intervention

study, revisions can then be made to repeat the cycle with forthcoming year groups.

I looked at a number of online wiki providers in early September and chose pbwiki

due mainly to its ease of use and ease of customization. Some pages of the wiki can

be seen in Figure 2:

Figure 2: Frontpage and General page as seen at http://fulfordgcseict.pbwiki.com/

The structure of the site was largely determined by the content of the project with

each page having links from the Frontpage and representing the various sections

that make up the GCSE coursework being studied.

Students were introduced to the wiki in late September in lessons. A very brief

introduction was given as to the concept of the wiki and a demonstration of how to

navigate through the site. I ensured all students signed up to the site. He highlighted

how the wiki could be used and the variety of information the wiki already held. Also,

he promised to provide answers to posts on the site within a couple of days. As the

course progressed and deadlines for each section were reached, new content was

added for upcoming sections and documents relating to the project such as

templates were only available to students via the wiki.

Observations were made on a periodic basis as to activity on the site. Secondary

data in a very ‘raw’ form (Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill, 2000, p189) was used. I

analysed traffic on the wiki through use of a site meter to look at access to the site

and its pages (Appendix 1) and looked for student contributions on the actual wiki

pages. After the students had completed and handed in their project in February, anonline questionnaire was created and completed (see Appendix 2. The number in

7



Intervention Study


the sample follows the advice given for a minimum number for statistical sampling,

by The Economist (1997) as cited in Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill (2000, p155) They

filled this in during lesson time to ensure it was completed, thus guaranteeing a

substantial amount of feedback. The questionnaires were structured with questionsthat could provide some quantitative evidence and on the whole they provided what

Wellington (2000, p17) describes as ‘background statistics’. In other words, the

questionnaires gave triggers for points to be raised in the interviews and enabled

data to analysed from other research methods used in the study. However the

techniques used in the questionnaires design gave students opportunities to also

add explanations/comments to support answers. In essence a balance of open and

closed questions was attempted in the questionnaire as recommended by

Oppenheim (2001, p110). The questionnaires also preserved anonymity as no

names were requested and response data was automatically saved.

To ensure triangulation in the research, two students were interviewed. A high–ability

and a low–ability 3 student. Specific questions were asked in relation to use of the

wiki and in response to theories of both academic writers and the feedback gathered

from the questionnaires. The aim was to gather specific comments to open-ended

questions, cited as a major advantage of using interviews in research by Oppenheim(2001, p81). This was largely a qualitative research tool but considered very useful

as a way of trying to interpret the quantitative data produced by structured

questionnaires (Kember 2000, p47)

Results/Findings

As far as being used as a learning repository, a place for “holding and sharing

documents in common” (Hewling, nd), the findings suggest that the wiki supported

students in completing their coursework. A response on the questionnaire issued

said that one of the main advantages was that it could be used anywhere, easing

restrictions on when the student could work, i.e. both in and out of school. This was

further supported by statistics from the questionnaire- over 40% of students said that

they had accessed the wiki out of school hours with the vast majority of use being for

3 High–ability – B or higher grade; Low–ability – D or lower

8



Intervention Study


downloading templates and examples of work provided by the teacher. The more–

able student who was interviewed said that the wiki was “more useful” than just

providing paper handouts and the lesser–able student said that if she had to

complete the same project again and was given a choice between being havingpaper notes or using a wiki she would choose a wiki because of accessibility.

Even though the questionnaire shows that students made use of the wiki, responses

allude to little use of the wiki as a collaborative community as in both wikis used in

the study by Lund and Smordal (2006). Further support for this point was through

observations of use of the wiki, when after a few weeks of its introduction, I was

aware of the lack of comments being posted on the site and had already received

some emails from students out of school time asking questions that could have been

answered the same way by posting the question on the wiki. Students were urged to

use the wiki to ask question by an announcement in lesson and a recap on the way

to operate the wiki to do this. At the same time I tried to encourage the students to

contribute their own work and help each other, i.e. build the research community

regardless of whether they were working on their coursework in the classroom or in

their own time. However, by October it was still evident that there was a lack of

student contribution. After having marked some of the Analysis section, and inresponse to limited student involvement, I asked a student if she would upload some

of her work on to the wiki. She agreed.

There is however, a very important factor when one considers the work of Lund and

Smordal (2006) and this intervention study: The subject of the wikis. Students in this

case were using the wiki to complete independent pieces of GCSE project work

whereas the work of Lund and Smordals’ students was of a group nature.

Collaboration and communication among students was key to the students

completing the work (Lund and Smordal 2006, p44). Arguably, students using my

wiki could complete their project work without any such teamwork.

Given the lack of collaboration on the wiki between students and between students

and teacher, I tried to ascertain in the interviews reasons for this. The more-able

student cited a fear of copying, not wanting to boast about one’s own work and a

lack of trust in work/advice not given by a teacher. This suggests not only did the

9



Intervention Study


context of the GCSE project being of independent work lead to a lack of community

but my role as teacher did not promote collaboration either. From the questionnaires,

of those who used the wiki, over 59% said they never looked at discussions or

comments over 70% never looked at other students’ uploaded work. In theinterviews, the more-able student said that it was possible that a stronger

collaborative community would have been created if the teacher had not contributed

as much. In other words, the evidence suggests that the role of the teacher did not

lend itself to building a learning community where the students are empowered and

their contributions drive the learning as described by Lund and Smordal (2006) and

Lamb (2004).

As regards using the wiki, from the questionnaire statistics, over 70% said it was

easy to use and during the project I received very few questions regarding how to

access or how to use the tools of the wiki. This was supported in the interviews and

the higher–ability student was the same student who uploaded work and said she

found that relatively easy to do. The lower–ability student commented on the

navigation and content, saying things were easy to find but criticised the amount of

text. She said that she would have preferred to have access to other formats of

information such as sound files similar to the mp3s used on the site. The format of most wikis was also criticized by Lamb (2004) as was the layout which he described

as “ugly”. He described a tendency towards quite primitive layout web design and

reliance on text in wikis. In the aforementioned student’s view and in my opinion, this

view has considerable worth if one looks at most wikis that are designed and used,

even in the most widely recognised and used wiki, wikipedia 4

Conclusion

This intervention study has given a valuable insight into how effective using a wiki to

teach project work in GCSE ICT can be. It has considered past research in the area

and focussed on how the wiki supported student coursework, to what extent a

community of collaboration (Pixy Ferris and Wilder, 2006) was created, ease of use

for students and how a wiki impacts on the role of the teacher.

4 http://www.wikipedia.org/

10



Intervention Study


From the study, it seems that using a wiki was successful in supporting student

coursework in that it was a resource they accessed and used, even to some extent,

relied upon when completing the work. The site meters (Appendix 1) howconsiderable traffic on the site and student feedback supports this. As already

mentioned though, most materials used were only available to students via the wiki

and a large amount of student use on the site was to access/download these

materials. Students were given access to resources at their convenience via the wiki.

In other words, it was largely an effective online database (Matias, 2003) and

provided a site for downloading necessary information.

As to creating a community of collaboration or further, a flexible resource that the

participants dictate, both described by Pixy Ferris and Wilder (2006), this study

suggests that a wiki was not very effective in this. There was no actual interaction

observed between students on the site. They did not reply to each other’s posts,

comment on work submitted and as communication with the teacher via the wiki was

limited, there was little to support Lund and Smordal (2006) regarding the whole

community learning from each other. Yet, the choice of context for a wiki is a

significant factor in my opinion. Without a need to collaborate, to share ideas andwhen the focus for each participant is an individual piece of work, students will not

instinctively create such a community.

The role of the teacher is also something that cannot be ignored when one considers

the extent to which a collaborative community has been created. I support the views

of Lund and Smordal (2006) and Lamb (2004) as regards the potential of wikis to

create a learning community that is driven largely by the participants. However, the

teacher involved has to be willing to let the students shape that community, take

control of the resources and as in the Lund and Smordal study, ‘force’ the issue. In

other words, when using a wiki a teacher’s role is essentially- making students aware

of the need to share, the benefits of such exchanges and tailoring work that will only

be a success if this occurs.

11



Intervention Study


To summarize, using a wiki was largely effective in many respects but there were

limitations as already discussed. A very relevant description of a wiki to the findings

of this study is:

Wikis happen to be good for collaboration, yes, but what they're really really

good for is being a space where it's really fast to write things down and find

them again

(Stafford and Webb 2006)

This description offered from a technological perspective, really shifts the focus away

from the community aspect to the elements of this study that were effectual, namely

accessible resources provided by the teacher to the students.

Thus, to consider future practice in the use of wiki, one should first of all judge the

collaborative nature of the work being covered. If the goal of the students and

teacher is to share ideas, build up a resource bank that relies on the participants

contributing then a wiki has many tools to aid this. Yet, the teacher has to be skilled

and confident in allowing students to have autonomy over the resource. If however,

as largely transpired in this study, the work is more independent and sharing is not

key to success, then a wiki can still be used as an online repository with a potentialto incorporate some of the tools for collaboration and communication.

12



Intervention Study


Referencing

Engstrom ME and Jewett D (2007), Collaborative learning the wiki way , TechTrendsVol 49, No6, 2007

Harrison C, BECTA (2008), Web 2.0: Technologies for learning Key Stages 3 and 4[Online] http://events.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=38826 [Accessed 26 th March2009]

Hewling A, (nd) PROWE: Personal Repositories Online: Wiki Environments CaseStudy 2: Using a wiki to support day-to-day activity within a research-orientated teaching department

Jenkins J, (1999) Teaching for Tomorrow. The Changing Role of Teachers in theConnected Classroom , Eden Open Classroom conference [Online]http://www.eden-online.org/papers/jenkins.pdf [Accessed 28 th March 2009]

Kember D, (2000) Action Learning and Action Research. Improving the quality of teaching and learning, Routledge

Lamb B, (2004), Wide Open Spaces: Wikis, Ready or Not, EDUCAUSE Review Vol.39 No. 5 (September/October 2004) [Online]http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/WideOpenSpacesWikisReadyo/40498?time=1238235416 [Accessed 28 th March 2009]

Lund A and Smordal O (2006), Is There a Space for the Teacher in a WIKI?Proceedings of the 2006 international Symposium on Wikis, ACM Research paper

McNiff J, Lomax P, Whitehead J (2003), You and Your Action Research Project 2 nd

Edition, Routledge

Matias N (2003), What is a Wiki? [Online] http://www.sitepoint.com/article/what-is-a-wiki/ [Accessed 27 th March 2009]

Mejias U (2006), Teaching Social Software with Social Software, Journal of OnlineEducation [Online] http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?

view=article&id=260&action=article [Accessed 26th

March]OFTSED (2009), The Importance of ICT Information and communication technology

in primary and secondary schools, 2005/2008 [Online]http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports/The-importance-of-ICT-information-and-communication-technology-in-primary-and-secondary-schools-2005-2008[Accessed 26 th March]

Oppenheim AN (2001), Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitudemeasurement, Continuum International

Prensky, M (2001), Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon Vol. 9 No. 5,(October 2001) [Online] http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-

13

http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf





Intervention Study


%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf . [Accessed26 th March]

Pixy Ferris, S and Wilder H (2006), Uses and Potentials of Wikis in the ClassroomJournal of Online Education [Online] http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?

view=article&id=258&action=article [Accessed 26 th March]

Riding P, Fowell S and Levy P (1995), An action research approach to curriculumdevelopment. Information Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, (April 1995) [Online]http://InformationR.net/ir/1-1/paper2.html [Accessed 28 th March 2009]

Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2000), Research Methods for Business StudentsPearson

Stafford T and Webb M (2006) What Is a Wiki (and How to Use One for Your Projects) O’Reilly [Online]

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2006/07/07/what-is-a-wiki.html?page=1[Accessed 10 th May 2009]

14





Intervention Study


Appendices

Appendix 1: Site meter datafulfordgcseict.pbworks.com (sm3nmjcksn)

-- Site Summary ---Visits

Total .......................... 207Average per Day .................. 3Average Visit Length ......... 27:42This Week ....................... 22

Page Views

Total ........................ 3,087Average per Day ................. 73Average per Visit ............. 23.3This Week ...................... 512

http://sm3.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=sm3nmjcksn

--- Visits this Week ---Day

Hour 5/6 5/7 5/8 5/9 5/10 5/11 5/12 Total---- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 4

10 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 211 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 212 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 213 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 114 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 315 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 516 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 017 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------2 5 2 0 0 8 5 22

--- Page Views this Week ---

15



Intervention Study


DayHour 5/6 5/7 5/8 5/9 5/10 5/11 5/12 Total---- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 17 0 0 0 0 26 3 46

10 12 8 0 0 0 180 6 20611 13 0 0 0 0 0 38 5112 0 18 25 0 0 0 0 4313 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 3114 0 0 6 0 0 10 10 2615 0 39 0 0 0 23 0 6216 0 24 0 0 0 8 0 32

17 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 418 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 819 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------fulfordgcseict.pbworks.com (sm3nmjcksn)

-- Site Summary ---Visits

Total .......................... 186Average per Day .................. 3Average Visit Length ......... 19:37This Week ....................... 18

Page Views

Total ........................ 2,611Average per Day ................. 37Average per Visit ............. 14.3This Week ...................... 257

http://sm3.sitemeter.com/stats.asp?site=sm3nmjcksn

--- Visits this Week ---Day

Hour 4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5 Total---- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

16



Intervention Study


10 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 311 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 313 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 114 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3

16 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 119 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------3 6 1 5 1 0 2 18

--- Page Views this Week ---Day

Hour 4/29 4/30 5/1 5/2 5/3 5/4 5/5 Total---- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5

10 2 4 0 0 0 0 4 1011 8 0 0 0 0 0 40 4812 0 40 16 0 0 0 0 5613 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 414 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 415 0 30 0 1 0 0 51 8216 0 14 0 2 0 0 22 3817 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 018 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 819 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 024 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -------

14 95 16 14 1 0 117 257

17



Intervention Study


Appendix 2: QuestionnaireTop of Form

Bottom of Form

Year 11 coursework mode of deliverysurvey

General * 1: What gender are you?

Please choose *only one* of the following:

Female

Male

* 2:

What GCSE grade are you predicted to achieve in ICT?


B or higher

C or D

D or lower

* 3:

As regards coursework/project work would you say:

Please choose the appropriate response for each item:

* 4: Generally, is ICT: Please choose *only one* of the following:

One of your favourite subjects

A subject you quite like

A subject you do not really like

One of your least favourite subjects

* 5: When having to learn software skills (such as Microsoft Access) would you preferto:


18

Stronglyagree A

gDi

Strongly disagree

I generally enjoy doingcoursework and project work I generally perform better incoursework and project work thanexams



Intervention Study


Be taught software skills by a teacher who explains them in detail

Be taught some software skills by a teacher but given the chance toexperiment for others

Be shown just the basics and directed to where you can teach yourself at your own pace

Learn by yourself using paper resources, text books, notes, etc

Learn by yourself using computer based programs

Learn largely using pictures and diagrams

Other

Using wikis * 1: When you wanted to use the pbwiki website, did you find that it was:

Please choose *only one* of the following:Always working

There were times it was not working

Often not working

Never working

* 2: How easy to use did you find the pbwiki website? Please choose *only one* of the following:

Very easy

Easy

Hard

Very hardMake a comment on your choice here:

* 3:

Did you use the pbwiki website outside of school?


A lot

Quite a lot

Not very much

Not at all

19



Intervention Study


* 4: How did you use the pbwiki website? Please choose the appropriate response for each item:

* 5: Did you make any comments or ask any questions on the Comments section of thewiki and if not why not?


Yes

NoMake a comment on your choice here:

* 6: Did you upload any of your own work to the wiki and if not, why not? Please choose *only one* of the following:

Yes

NoMake a comment on your choice here:

20

Extensively

Qui

te a lot

Occa

sionally Never

To download templates I neededTo look at materials the teacher

provided (such as exampledocuments)To check deadline dates

To find the teacher'semail/messenger detailsTo add/look at comments anddiscussions on pagesTo listen to mp3s for help andadviceTo look at other students' work that had been uploaded to the wiki



Intervention Study


* 7: As a method of learning coursework/project work, what advantages/disadvantageswould you say that the wiki has over more traditional, paper based methods?

Please write your answer here:

Submit your survey.Thank you for completing this survey..

Results:

FulfordIT Surveys and Forms

21



Intervention Study


Top of Form

53zs9fecxv

Bottom of Form

ResultsNo of records in this query: 27

Total records in survey: 27

Percentage of total: 100.00%

Field summary for 1:What gender are you?

Answer Count PercentageNo answer 0 0

Female (F) 17 62.96%Male (M) 10 37.04%

Field summary for 2:What GCSE grade are you predicted to achieve in

ICT?


B or higher (1) 16 59.26%

C or D (2) 8 29.63%

D or lower (3) 3 11.11%

Field summary for 3(1):

As regards coursework/project work would you

say:

[I generally enjoy doing coursework and project

work]Answer Count Percentage

No answer 0 0Strongly agree (1) 0 0

Agree (2) 11 40.74%Disagree (3) 12 44.44%

Strongly disagree (4) 4 14.81%


As regards coursework/project work would you

say:

[I generally perform better in coursework andproject work than exams]

22



Intervention Study



Strongly agree (1) 2 7.41%Agree (2) 13 48.15%

Disagree (3) 10 37.04%Strongly disagree (4) 2 7.41%

Field summary for 4:Generally, is ICT:

Answer Count Percentage

No answer 0 0

One of your favourite

subjects (1)

1 3.70%

A subject you quite like (2) 9 33.33%A subject you do not really

like (3)

8 29.63%

One of your least favourite

subjects (4)

9 33.33%

Field summary for 5:When having to learn software skills (such as

Microsoft Access) would you prefer to:


Be taught software skills by

a teacher who explains

them in detail (1)

12 44.44%

Be taught some software

skills by a teacher but

given the chance to

experiment for others (2)

5 18.52%

Be shown just the basics

and directed to where you

can teach yourself at your

own pace (3)

2 7.41%

Learn by yourself using

paper resources, text

books, notes, etc (4)

1 3.70%

Learn by yourself using

computer based programs(5)

2 7.41%

23



Intervention Study


Learn largely using pictures

and diagrams (6)

4 14.81%

OtherBrow se 1 3.70%

Field summary for 1:

When you wanted to use the pbwiki website, did

you find that it was:


No answer 0 0Always working (1) 23 85.19%

There were times it was

not working (2)

2 7.41%

Often not working (3) 0 0Never working (4) 2 7.41%


How easy to use did you find the pbwiki website?Answer Count Percentage

No answer 0 0

Very easy (1) 7 25.93%

Easy (2) 19 70.37%Hard (3) 0 0

Very hard (4) 1 3.70%


Did you use the pbwiki website outside of school?Answer Count Percentage

No answer 0 0A lot (1) 1 3.70%

Quite a lot (2) 10 37.04%

Not very much (3) 11 40.74%

Not at all (4) 5 18.52%


How did you use the pbwiki website?

[To download templates I needed]Answer Count Percentage

No answer 0 0Extensively (1) 6 22.22%

Quite a lot (2) 16 59.26%

Occasionally (3) 2 7.41%Never (4) 3 11.11%

24





Intervention Study



How did you use the pbwiki website?

[To listen to mp3s for help and advice]


Extensively (1) 0 0Quite a lot (2) 0 0


Field summary for 4(7):How did you use the pbwiki website?

[To look at other students' work that had beenuploaded to the wiki]


No answer 0 0

Extensively (1) 0 0Quite a lot (2) 1 3.70%


Field summary for 5:Did you make any comments or ask any questions

on the Comments section of the wiki and if not

why not?


Yes (1) 1 3.70%No (2) 26 96.30%

Field summary for 6:Did you upload any of your own work to the wiki

and if not, why not?


No answer 0 0

Yes (1) 2 7.41%No (2) 25 92.59%


As a method of learning coursework/projectwork, what advantages/disadvantages would you

26



Intervention Study


say that the wiki has over more traditional, paper

based methods?


Answer

Brow se 26 96.30%

No answer 1 3.70%

Show summary information