Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 03 January 2014, At: 11:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Open Learning: The Journal of Open,Distance and e-LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20
Wikis: what students do and do not dowhen writing collaborativelyHagit Meishar‐Tal a & Paul Gorsky a
a Open University of Israel , Ra’anana, IsraelPublished online: 21 Jan 2010.
To cite this article: Hagit Meishar‐Tal & Paul Gorsky (2010) Wikis: what students do and do not dowhen writing collaboratively, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25:1,25-35
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680510903482074
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Open LearningVol. 25, No. 1, February 2010, 25–35
ISSN 0268-0513 print/ISSN 1469-9958 online© 2010 The Open UniversityDOI: 10.1080/02680510903482074http://www.informaworld.com
Wikis: what students do and do not do when writing collaboratively
Hagit Meishar-Tal* and Paul Gorsky
Open University of Israel, Ra’anana, IsraelTaylor and FrancisCOPL_A_448592.sgm10.1080/02680510903482074Open Learning0268-0513 (print)/1469-9958 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis251000000February [email protected]
We investigated the collaborative writing actions carried out by 60 OpenUniversity of Israel graduate students as they built a wiki glossary of key courseconcepts. These actions were analysed using a taxonomy of collaborative writingactions (i.e. adding, editing and deleting information) in order to find out whatstudents do and what they do not do when writing collaboratively. Two mainfindings were reported: in accord with previous research, students most frequentlyadd content to a wiki rather than delete existing text; and contrary to previousresearch, students modify existing texts to a greater extent than previouslyreported. These findings may help teachers design collaborative learningactivities. Teachers should be aware of the difficulties faced by students whenwriting collaboratively and should design collaborative learning activities in waysthat overcome or circumvent these difficulties.
Keywords: wiki; collaborative learning; collaborative writing
Introduction
Recently, higher education institutions, especially open and distance universities thatdepend heavily on online teaching and learning, have begun developing and usingwiki-based collaborative writing activities for their students (Aguar, Reitman, &Zhou, 2004 ; Bruns & Humphreys, 2005; Forte & Bruckman, 2006; Gudzial, Rick, &Colleen, 2001; Rick, Gudzial, Carroll, Holloway-Attaway, & Walker, 2002; TalElhasid & Meishar-Tal, 2007). These activities open many avenues for wiki-basedresearch:
● What does it mean to write collaboratively?● What kinds of collaborative actions take place?● What are the technical, pedagogical and psychological constraints that influence
the way students write?● Which collaborative writing activities encourage students to achieve better
collaboration?
This paper begins to deal with these questions by asking a simple research question:What do students do and not do when writing collaboratively on wikis? In order toanswer this question, we categorised the editing actions undertaken by 60 OpenUniversity of Israel (OUI) graduate students as they worked collaboratively on amandatory course-based wiki assignment. The assignment required them to build aglossary of the main concepts covered in the course. In order to categorise the actions
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
26 H. Meishar-Tal and P. Gorsky
carried out by the students, an existing taxonomy (Pfeil, Zaphiris, & Ang, 2006) wasrestructured and used.
Given the complexity and diversity of collaborative writing, we suggest thathaving the ability to categorise objectively the kinds of actions performed by collab-orators may ultimately provide benchmarks for establishing ‘best practice’ for sucheducational activities and assignments. Best practice is defined as the most efficientand effective way (or ways) of accomplishing a task, based on time-tested, reliable,repeatable procedures for large numbers of people. Such findings, we believe, may beuseful to educators and learning designers; they will suggest how to use wikis indiverse collaborative learning environments.
Wikis as collaborative writing environments
Collaborative writing is defined broadly as an activity that involves the production ofa document by more than one author (Allen, Atkinson, Morgan, Moore, & Snow,1987; Dillon, 1993). Collaborative writing is a complex process, involving strategies,writing activities, document control modes, roles and work modes (Lowry, Curtis, &Lowry, 2004; Posner & Baecker, 1992). Sharples et al. (1993) were among the first tocategorise collaborative writing activities. They identified two main strategies forcarrying out collaborative writing projects: longitudinal, in which work is dividedinto sequential stages; and parallel partitioning, in which work is divided intosegments enabling participants to work in parallel. Lowry et al. (2004) also character-ised the different roles taken in collaborative writing projects (writer, editor,reviewer, etc.) and the different activities that may be considered as collaborativewriting (brainstorming, outlining, drafting, reviewing etc.).
Most collaborative writing initiatives, as well as most research on collaboration,still concentrate on ‘word processors’. Currently, the most common way to writecollaboratively is by transferring word processor documents by email among thecollaborators, using such tools as ‘track changes’ and ‘comments’ (Noël & Robert,2004). A newer tool for collaborative writing is wiki (Leuf & Caningham, 2001).Wikis are online environments that enable the co-creation of online documents.
Noël and Robert (2004) defined requirements for the ideal collaborative writingtool. It should allow:
(1) immediate access to the document,(2) access to all previous versions,(3) ease in viewing all previous modifications,(4) comments that are distinct from the main text, and(5) simple communication modes.
Wikis meet all these criteria: they are accessible anywhere at any time; they storeprevious versions of the co-written text, thereby allowing authors to compare currentversions with previous modifications; and they have a ‘Talk Page’ (attached to eachdocument page) that enables co-authors and editors to communicate with commentsand notes.
In addition, wikis are bias-free; they do not enforce a specific collaboration modeon users. They can be used as a platform for small group collaboration (Tal-Elhasid &Meishar-Tal, 2007) as well as for large groups, such as in Wikipedia (Wilkinson &Huberman, 2007). Teachers and instructional designers determine the nature of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Open Learning 27
collaboration; that is, the division of labour, role-taking and the activities to be carriedout. Students can work simultaneously on the same document or create roles and workin a more sequential way.
Learning with wikis provides students with the opportunity to construct their ownknowledge (Lund & Smordal, 2006) and to engage in reflection (Forte & Bruckman,2007). Students can interact with each other to clarify and share ideas, and to expresstheir critical thoughts by assessing peer contributions (Parker & Chao, 2007).
Experience gained in early experiments showed that although a high potential forcollaboration exists, difficulties must be overcome. First, regarding the shared owner-ship of data within a wiki, Davies reported that many students complained: ‘I don’twant someone else to edit my work’ (2004, p. 20). Secondly, regarding the action ofediting another’s work, Minocha and Thomas (2007) and Da Lio, Fraboni, and Leo(2005) reported that students were reluctant not only to change each other’s work, buteven to criticise or make comments. These difficulties often led to a document char-acterised by a ‘threaded discussion forum style’ (Cubric, 2007) that lacked integrationand unity.
Given that wikis do not enforce a specific collaboration mode on students andprovide them with an opportunity to construct their own knowledge, a wide range ofactivities may be carried out. In order to investigate how collaboration occurs, or not,in wiki environments, an appropriate taxonomy for classifying actions carried out onwikis is required. We now propose such a taxonomy.
A taxonomy for classifying actions carried out on wikis
In order to carry out our research, we began with a taxonomy developed by Pfeil et al.(2006) that categorises actions carried out on wikis into 13 categories:
(1) Add information.(2) Add link.(3) Clarify information.(4) Delete information.(5) Delete link.(6) Fix link.(7) Format.(8) Grammar.(9) Changes in mark-up language.(10) Revisions.(11) Spelling.(12) Style/typology.(13) Vandalism.
We contend, however, that this taxonomy suffers from two shortcomings. First, cate-gories are seemingly equivalent in type and importance, since they are listed in paral-lel, without dimensions or classes. We suggest that imposing a hierarchical classstructure on these categories may add order and clarity to the kinds of editorial actionscarried out. Second, certain classification procedures in the original taxonomy dependupon content analysis. For example, the categories ‘clarifying information’ and ‘addinformation’ can be differentiated only by someone familiar with the subject at hand.We assert that a taxonomy based upon simple procedures for counting clear-cut
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
28 H. Meishar-Tal and P. Gorsky
behaviour is inherently more reliable. In so asserting, we are not detracting from theimportance of making value judgements regarding the quality of co-author contribu-tions, only stating that, as a first step toward understanding the kinds of activities thatoccurred, objective and reliable measurements are preferable. This, we believe, isafforded by the restructured taxonomy that is illustrated in Figure 1.Figure 1. Refined taxonomy of actions carried out on wikis.At the highest level, editorial actions are divided into two broad categories: ‘onsentences’ and ‘within sentences’. In the former category, actions are carried out onentire sentences. For example, the editorial action ‘move’ relocates an entiresentence; the sentence is not changed in any way. The editorial action ‘delete’ erasesan entire sentence as is. In the latter category, actions are carried out on specificwords within sentences. Table 1 defines typical editorial actions that may be donewithin sentences.
Background, research questions and methodology
The study took place at the OUI, a distance learning university. It was performedduring a one-semester, graduate education course, ‘Technology and Learning’, during2007. Sixty students were assigned to build collaboratively a glossary of the course’skey terms over a period of 12 weeks. They were specifically instructed to add at leasttwo new terms to the glossary and to improve it by editing existing terms created bytheir fellow students. No limit was placed on the number of editorial actions per
Figure 1. Refined taxonomy of actions carried out on wikis.
Table 1. Typical editorial actions that may be done within sentences.
Format (add or delete)Grammar (add or
delete)Content (add or
delete) Lingual
Formats (bold, colour, underlines, etc.), headings, numbering, etc.
Periods, commas, parentheses, etc.
Words, pictures, links, etc.
Spelling, translate, etc.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Open Learning 29
student. The assignment was compulsory; students had to participate in order to passthe course.
The course’s wiki environment records and saves all editorial actions made to thewiki, including date, time and who made the change. All changes were categorised interms of the refined taxonomy. A research assistant categorised all the editorialchanges carried out (n = 750).
In order to determine how students worked in this collaborative environment, weasked the following research question: What kinds of activities were performed bystudents as they collaboratively constructed the course glossary? This broad questionwas operationalised as follows:
(1) What and how many actions were carried out by the students?(2) To what extent did students perform actions (add, delete and move) on entire
sentences?(3) To what extent and how did students perform editorial actions within individ-
ual sentences?(4) Which of the glossary’s terms were most frequently edited? Why?
Findings
All 60 students in the course collaborated to compose the glossary, which included atotal of 142 terms. After initial posting, 19 of the terms (13%) were not edited at all;123 (87%) were subsequently edited by other students. A total of 2986 editorialactions was performed and categorised. Fifty-nine per cent of the actions carried outby students were within sentences and 41% were on sentences. Figures 2 and 3 showthe distributions of actions in both categories.
Figure 2. Distribution of actions carried out by students within sentences.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
30 H. Meishar-Tal and P. Gorsky
Figure 2. Distribution of actions carried out by students within sentences.Figure 3. Distribution of actions carried out by students on sentences.We next refined this analysis by recording the frequency of editorial actionscarried out by the 60 students who took part in the assignment. The average numberof actions per student was nearly 50. Table 2 presents these data.
The most common editorial action, adding a sentence, was carried out by 90% ofthe students. We noted, however, that the distribution is not Gaussian; we thereforecalculated median values, which clearly show the skewed nature of the distributions.Indeed, a closer examination of the remaining editorial actions showed the dominanceof a small minority of students.
Figure 3. Distribution of actions carried out by students on sentences.
Table 2. Distribution of editorial actions carried out by students.
Edit
Content
Add Delete Move Wording Link Format Lingual Grammar
Students performing at least one action (%)
90 28 23 70 35 47 43 48
Average number of actions/student
16.67 2.97 0.70 6.57 4.40 10.60 4.75 3.12
Standard deviation 17.63 10.37 2.01 9.40 12.65 32.96 11.20 8.67Median 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Open Learning 31
● Delete sentence: 35% were performed by one student, while an additional 29%were performed by a second student. In other words, nearly two-thirds of allsentence deletions were carried out by only two students.
● Move sentence: one student accounted for 29% of this editorial action.● Grammar: one student accounted for 33% of all corrections.● Format and content: one student accounted for 38% of the formatting and 29%
of the content (mostly adding hyperlinks). This same student accounted for 16%of all editorial acts. She personally carried out 478 editorial actions.
Our final analysis recorded the distribution of editorial actions performed on the123 terms that were edited. Table 3 presents the distributions.
The average number of editorial acts per term was 24. The most common actioncarried out on a term was to add a sentence. A sentence was added to 78% of the termsedited. Additions occurred three times more than deletions and 4.3 times more thanmoving entire sentences.
These distributions, as reflected in median values, were also highly skewed. Alarge number of sentences was added to relatively few, selected terms; for most terms,there were few additions or none at all. The same disproportion is also true forsentence deletions; for most terms, there were few deletions or none at all.
Discussion
We found that adding text was carried out by a large majority of students (90%) on awide range of terms (78%); deleting text was carried out by a minority of students(28%) on relatively few terms (26%). On the one hand, these findings reinforce previ-ous qualitative ones implying that students are reluctant to delete text from wikis(Cubric, 2007; Da Lio et al., 2005; Minocha & Thomas, 2007). On the other hand, welimit the validity of these findings to the research study at hand. We do so since thetaxonomy does not take into account the value or quality of the original posts. Forexample, if the group judged the majority of submissions as being of acceptable qual-ity, then we would not expect a high number of deletions. Furthermore, we expect thatthe specific task at hand, compiling a glossary of key course concepts, will have asignificant impact on editing behaviour since definitions of key course concepts arerelatively objective and straightforward.
Our findings also indicate that students edited existing text to a greater extent thanpreviously reported in non-quantitative terms (Da Lio et al., 2005; Minocha &
Table 3. Distribution of editorial actions performed on the 123 terms that were edited.
Edit
Content
Add Delete Move Wording Link Format Lingual Grammar
Terms edited at least once (%)
78 26 18 77 69 60 27 52
Average number of actions/term
8.13 1.45 0.34 3.20 2.15 5.17 2.32 1.52
Standard deviation 10.15 4.21 1.11 3.82 3.29 6.88 2.5 2.01Median 5 0 0 2 1 1 2 1
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
32 H. Meishar-Tal and P. Gorsky
Thomas, 2007). The total percentage of editorial changes (59%) was even higher thansentence additions (34%). In addition to the limitations cited above, these findings,however, must be viewed within the constraint imposed by the course whereinstudents were required to edit each other’s work. In the absence of such require-ments, results would probably have been quite different. In any case, these findingsemphasise the impact of instructional strategy on students’ collaborative writingbehaviour.
The findings also showed that a minority of students (about 10%) were extremelydominant. The dominant students were ‘specialists’ who created near ‘monopolies’ oncertain kinds of editorial actions: one ‘mover’, two ‘deleters’, one ‘stylist’ as well asone student who served as ‘formatter’ and ‘linker’. These roles and behaviours wereassumed without any direct instruction, apparently quite spontaneously. Such findingsare consistent with previous ones that investigated participant behaviour in Wikipedia,online communities and OUI course forums. The founder of Wikipedia reported that2.5% of all users contribute 80% of all content. Furthermore, 50% of the content isgenerated by only 1% of the contributors (cited in Tapscott & Williams, 2007).
These findings reflect very similar phenomena found in other online communities.Adar and Huberman (2000) found that 10% of users supply 87% of all content. Simi-larly, Lakhani and Hippel (2003) found that only 4% of the members of open-sourcedevelopment communities provide 50% of the responses. Peddibhotla and Subramani(2007) refer to the notion of ‘critical mass’, indicating the disproportionate contribu-tions that a minority of contributors make to public document repositories.
In OUI course forums, Caspi and Blau (2008) found that 30% of the participantsreported posting three messages or more to the course discussion group, 45.7%reported posting one or two messages, and the rest (24.3%) reported never posting atall. The finding that about 30% posted three messages or more is higher than earlierfindings from the same university, wherein only about 15% of the students posted toa similar degree (Caspi, Chajut, Saporta, & Beyth-Marom, 2006; Caspi, Gorsky, &Chajut, 2003).
Regarding the distribution of editorial actions on terms, findings appear to reflectthe ‘long tail’ effect (Anderson, 2004) – wherein a small number of terms got theattention of a large number of users, and a large number of terms were edited by asmall number of users. This may imply that a glossary of course concepts, like otherconcept maps, is a scale-free network (Barabási, 2003), meaning that even though allterms had the same chance to be edited, some are more ‘attractive’ than others andserve as ‘nodes’ in the concept map. Further research could be conducted to find outwhy particular terms caught the attention of many editors and why others did not.
Although we clearly recognise the need for making judgemental evaluations ofeditorial actions carried out by students on both form and content, we intentionallyexcluded assigning a value to individual editorial contributions. The taxonomy isintended to serve as an objective starting point for assessing what kinds of editorialactions were carried out by participants collaborating in a wiki environment. Twopotentially very useful benefits may emerge from the use of this taxonomy:
(1) it can standardise research terminology vis-à-vis actions carried out on wikis,and
(2) the information obtained from the taxonomy may be useful for correlatingstudents’ learning styles and personality traits, on the one hand, with theireditorial actions, on the other.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Open Learning 33
To illustrate this point, we suggest the following two examples. First, students whoseactions are predominantly ‘on sentences’ may correlate with the trait ‘fielddependent’, while students whose actions are predominantly ‘within sentences’ maycorrelate with the trait ‘field independent’ (Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox,1977). The field-dependent learner is one who processes information globally; thislearner is less analytical and sees the perceptual field as a whole. The field-indepen-dent person is attentive to detail and reduces a system into its component parts. Theseassumptions may be investigated in future research.
Second, the inclination to edit wikis or the predominate use of one or more of thefour edit categories (format, grammar, content and lingual) may relate to and possiblycorrelate with specific student attributes, say ‘Big Five’ personality traits (Goldberg,1993; Thurstone, 1934). These personality traits are five broad dimensions of person-ality: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism(OCEAN). Each factor consists of a cluster of more specific traits. For example, extra-version (sociability, excitement-seeking, impulsiveness, and positive emotions) maycorrelate with the amount of editorial actions carried out; conscientiousness may corre-late with the predominate use of one or more of the four edit categories. These, of course,are speculations that may be investigated empirically.
To conclude, we recommend that a useful content analysis technique would beused in addition to the basic taxonomy. Such an integrated tool will help us attain anoverall picture of what happens when students write collaboratively in a wiki environ-ment. This may ultimately lead to benchmarks that will establish best-practicetechniques.
ReferencesAdar, E., & Huberman, B. (2000). Economics of surfing. Quarterly Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 1(3), 203–214.Allen, N., Atkinson, D., Morgan, M., Moore, T., & Snow, C. (1987). What experienced
collaborators say about collaborative writing. Journal of Business and Technical Commu-nication, 1(2), 70–90.
Anderson, C. (2004). The long tale. Wired, 12(10), Retrieved July 2008, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html
Augar, N., Raitman, R., & Zhou, W. (2004). Teaching and learning online with wikis.Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference. Retrieved July 2008, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/augar.html
Barabási, A.L. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific American, 288, 60–69.Bruns, A., & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment – The M/Cyclopedia
Project. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis, San Diego, CA,October 16–18 (pp. 25–32). Retrieved July 2008, from: http://www.wikisym.org/ws2005/proceedings/paper-03.pdf
Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Online discussion groups: The relationship between social pres-ence and perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 323–346.
Caspi, A., Chajut, E., Saporta, K., & Beyth-Marom, R. (2006). The influence of personalityon social participation in learning environments. Learning and Individual Differences,16(2), 129–144.
Caspi, A., Gorsky, P., & Chajut, E. (2003). The influence of group size on non-mandatoryasynchronous instructional discussion groups. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(3),227–240.
Cubric, M. (2007). Wiki-based framework for blended learning. In Proceedings of the 2007International Symposium on Wikis (wikisym), Montréal, Québec, Canada, October 21–23. Retrieved July 2008, from http://www.wikisym.org/ws2007/publish/CubricWikiSym2007BlendedLearningFramework.pdf
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
34 H. Meishar-Tal and P. Gorsky
Da Lio, E., Fraboni, L., & Leo, T. (2005). TWiki-based facilitation in a newly formedacademic community of practice. In Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium onWikis. San Diego, CA: ACM Press. Retrieved July 2008, from http://www.wikisym.org/ws2005/proceedings/paper-09.pdf
Davies, J. (2004). Wiki brainstorming and problems with wiki based collaboration. Report ona project submitted for the degree of Information Processing in the Department of ComputerScience at the University of York. Retrieved July 2008, from http://www.users.cs.york.ac.uk/∼kimble/teaching/students/Jonathan_Davies/wiki_collaboration_and_brainstorming.pdf
Dillon, A. (1993). How collaborative is collaborative writing? An analysis of the productionof two technical reports. In M. Sharples (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative writing(pp. 69–86). London: Springer-Verlag.
Forte, A., & Bruckman, M. (2006). From Wikipedia to the classroom: Exploring online publi-cation and learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the LearningSciences (Vol 1, pp. 182–188). Bloomington, IN.
Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2007). Constructing text: Wiki as a toolkit for learning. InProceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis (wikisym), Montréal,Québec, Canada, October 21–23.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist,48, 26–34.
Gudzial, M., Rick, J., & Kehoe, C. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher-createdcollaborative activities in higher education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(3),265–279.
Lakhani, K.R., & Hippel, E.V. (2003). How open source software works: ‘Free’ user-to-userassistance. Research Policy, 32, 923–943.
Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The Wiki way: Quick collaboration on the Web. NewYork: Addison-Wesley.
Lowry, P.B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M.R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature ofcollaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. Journal ofBusiness Communication, 41, 66–99.
Lund, A., & Smordal, O. (2006). Is there a space for the teacher in a Wiki? In Proceedings ofthe 2006 International Symposium on Wikis (wikisym), Odense, Denmark, August 21–23.
Minocha, S., & Thomas, P. (2007). Collaborative learning in a wiki environment: Experiencesfrom a software engineering course. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13(2),187–209.
Noël, S., & Robert, J.M. (2004). Empirical study on collaborative writing: What do co-authors do, use, and like? (pp. 63–89). Chicago, IL: CSCW, ACM.
Parker, K.R., & Chao, J.T. (2007). Wikis as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal ofKnowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 49–59.
Peddibhotla, N., & Subramani, M. (2007). Contributing to public document repositories: Acritical mass theory perspective. Organizational Studies, 28(3), 327–346.
Pfeil, U., Zaphiris, P., & Ang, C.S. (2006). Cultural differences in collaborative authoring ofWikipedia. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(1). Retrieved July 2008,from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue1/pfeil.html
Posner, I.R., & Baecker, R.M. (1992). How people write together. Paper presented at theTwenty-fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 7–10 January, Kauai.
Rick, J., Gudzial, M., Carroll, K., Holloway-Attaway, L., & Walker, B. (2002). Collaborativelearning at low cost: CoWeb use in English composition. In Proceedings of ComputerSupport for Collaborative Learning Conference, Boulder, CO, January 7–11 (pp. 435–442). Retrieved July 2008, from http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu:8888/csl/uploads/24/CoWe-bInEnglish-CSCL2002.pdf
Sharples, M., Goodlet, J., Beck, E., Wood, C., Easterbrook, S., & Plowman, L. (1993).Research issues in the study of computer supported collaborative writing. In M. Sharples(Ed.), Computer supported collaborative writing (pp. 9–28). London: Springer-Verlag.
Tal-Elhasid, E., & Meishar-Tal, H. (2007). Models for activities, collaboration and assessmentin wiki in academic courses. In Electronic proceedings of Eden conference, Naples, June.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A.D. (2007). Wikinomics: How mass-collaboration changes every-thing. New York: Penguin Group.
Thurstone, L. (1934). The vectors of the mind. Psychological Review, 41, 1–32.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
Open Learning 35
Wilkinson, D.M., & Huberman, B.A. (2007). Assessing the value of cooperation in Wikipedia,Digital Libraries (cs.DL). Computers and Society; Physics and Society. Retrieved July2008, from http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0702140v1
Witkin, H.A., Moore, C.A., Goodenough, D.R., & Cox, P.W. (1977). Field-dependent andfield-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review ofEducational Research, 47, 1–64.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mos
kow
Sta
te U
niv
Bib
liote
] at
11:
23 0
3 Ja
nuar
y 20
14
