Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Don’t leave me alone: effectiveness of a framed wiki-based learning activity
Nikolaos Tselios Panagiota Altanopoulou Vassilis Komis ICT in Education Group, Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, University of Patras, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] http://www.ecedu.upatras.gr/icte/
Goal of the study
To investigate if (and to what extent) a properly designed wiki based activity enhances the learning process.
Research questions1. What is the effect of a framed, rigorously designed wiki
based activity on the learning outcome? (using pre and post-test questionnaires)
2. Is the learning gain evenly distributed across all students?3. The role of the students while carrying out the activity
affects their performance?4. What are the students’ grade distribution patterns after
activity’s completion?
2
Methodology
method: Within subjects, one group pre- post-test design
Data acquisition technique: Questionnaire (pre & post test) comprising 40 questions related to the topics
of the activity students were not informed about the
assessment Sample: 146 students of an Educational
Department (University of Patras, Greece) attending the compulsory course “Introduction
to ICT”3
Goal of the activity
To collect information about search engines in general and Google in particular.
Importance of the activity: the students should be able to understand the importance and
impact of search engines on society and on education. It helps students to deeply understand a variety of historical,
educational, technological and business aspects of search engines thus providing a fertile ground for argumentation.
it is a notable session of the course’s overall outline.
Learning was expected to be achieved by engaging the students into 4 processes: information seeking and retrieval argumentation development and refinement to support their
thesis cooperation among members and their involvement with the wiki editing process 4
Using wikis in education( West & West, 2009)
West & West (2009) identify the following critical factors to add context to the wiki environment: define and classify the learning goals of the
wiki project, design a rich context and problem that support
the achievement of the purpose and goals, prepare students for work in the new
environment, promote a collaborative process through which
active, social learning can take place5
Procedure
First, an instruction on the wiki’s basic functionality was given to the students.
Subsequently, the assignment was presented to them in the form of a wiki designed by the researchers.
The wiki presented the learning objectives, detailed and organized instructions to carry out the assignment, evaluation criteria and supporting material in the form of references and hyperlinks.
They were allowed to freely form their groups comprising 5 members each without any restrictions. Each team member had a specific role in the group.
6
Activity design (1/3): subtopics The wiki included 10 segment topics upon which students
relied on to accomplish their task. The topics were the following: Google’s founders, Google’s history, the pagerank algorithm, search techniques, the technological infrastructure of the search engine, Google’s working environment, services provided, Google’s business model, usage of search engines in education, Google as a monopolist threat.
For each topic, an indicative outline, supporting material and references, or/and specific arguments were given to the students to develop.
The context was not restrictive and the students were encouraged to use additional arguments. 7
Activity design (2/3): grading scheme
A clearly stated grading rubric for all sections was given to the students: The criteria were text relevance text clarity argument originality and reasoning compliance to the provided structure and format guidelines material appropriateness and richness and appropriate use of references.
It was stressed that usage of other’s work should follow specific rules. The students were informed how to use and cite other sources, freely
available media or media under a creative common license.
8
Activity design (3/3): Groups and role’s assignment
Each group had to create a wiki (using the wikispaces service)
Each team member had a specific role. "Collector", had the responsibility to obtain appropriate material
relevant to the subject undertaken by the team. "Coordinator”: organize the collected material and to check its
consistency and relatedness with the objectives of the project. The "Editor“: compose the outline of the topics according to the
objectives of the scenario. The "Verifier" : to check the contents of the work for its completeness,
structure and compliance with the objectives of the project. http://ergastiriowiki.wikispaces.com
9
Demographic data
2 male, 144 female, aged 17-40 (mean=19.24, SD=3.58).
35 more students did not respond to the assessment questionnaire (either the pre-test or the post-test)
Most of the students (132/146) reported that they have Internet connection at home and use it mainly on a daily basis (89/146) for information retrieval, email and instant messaging.
Concerning their wiki experience, only 28/146 students reported that they had previously used wikis (except Wikipedia).
10
Students’ pre-test and post-test performance (1/3)
40 multiple choice questions (4 possible answers each)
The average students’ performance jumped from 38.6% (SD = 9.72) to 54.9% (SD = 11.52). The percentage difference is 42.36%;
Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks, p <0.0001, vs.
• students already had a satisfactory understanding of • search techniques, • usage of search engines in
education and• other services provided by
Google due to their participation in previous lectures and laboratory sessions.
11
Google’s founders
Google’s history
Pagerank algorithm
Search techniques
Google’s technological Infrastructure
Google working environment
Services provided
Google's business model
Usage of search engines in education
Google as a monopolist threat
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00%
78.08%
67.98%
42.12%
47.60%
36.99%
63.36%
57.53%
51.03%
60.96%
43.84%
30.14%
29.79%
25.00%
40.75%
39.38%
42.95%
45.55%
34.93%
53.60%
43.84%
Pre-test (Ν=146) Post-test (Ν=146)
Students’ pre-test and post-test performance (2/3)
85/146 (58.2%) students improved their test scores by at least 40%.
The highest improvement observed was 50 percentage points (from 22.5% to 72.5%).
A decrease in the success rates was observed in 5/40 questions and in 1/10 subtopics.
In only 11/146 students, a decline in test performance was observed. possibly a low involvement in the
activity?12
Question categories
Pre-test (Ν=146)
Post-test (Ν=146)
% differenc
e
Google’s founders 30.14% 78.08%
159.09%
Google’s history 29.79% 67.98%
128.16%
Pagerank algorithm 25.00% 42.12%
68.49%
Search techniques 40.75% 47.60% 16.8%Google’s technological Infrastructure 39.38% 36.99% -6.08%Google working environment 42.95% 63.36%
47.41%
Services provided 45.55% 57.53%
26.31%
Google's business model 34.93% 51.03%
46.07%
Usage of search engines in education 53.60% 60.96%
13.73%
Google as a monopolist threat 43.84% 43.84% 0.00%
Total 38.60% 54.95%
42.36%
Students’ pre-test and post-test performance (3/3)
The 73 students with the lowest initial test scores: improvement of 21.3 points, The 73 students with the highest initial scores improved by 11.4 percentage points strong negative correlation between students’ post-test improvement and their pre-
test performance (Pearson’s r=-0.513, s). 13
Pre-test performance
Learn
ing g
ain
effect of the students’ role on the learning gain
a one-way ANOVA, did not unveil any significant effect of the students’ role on the learning gain; F(3,142)=0.441, p=0.724.
The learning gain according to the students’ role ranged from 14.73 (editor) to 17.74 (collector).
This finding suggests that the wiki-mediated activity benefited students regardless of the selected role.
14
Grade distribution
The 37 teams were graded from 50% to 91%. The scores were multiplied by the number of the
group members. Subsequently, they were asked to discuss and
share these points fairly according to each member’s contribution.
a significant differentiation was observed in only 9/37 groups.
▪ 100 for 4 members and 55 for the 5th▪ 100-100-77-65-50.5▪ 65-65-60-45▪ 100 points were assigned for the 2 members while the other members
received 77, 50.5 and 75 points, respectively▪ In the 5 remaining groups, subtle differences were observed (11, 10, 8.5, 7
and 5 points difference between the highest and the lowest score)15
Conclusions…
A significant learning gain was observed, especially for the students with lower initial performance
A project based learning framework as proposed by West & West (2009) mediated by Wikis seems: Could unobtrusively integrate into the learning
process Contribute to effective collaboration across the
members of a team Motivate and engage students the students reported
▪ positive attitudes towards the wiki-mediated activity while presenting their work and reflecting upon their experience with the rest of the class
▪ Moreover, they managed to balance between members’ different views, criticism, modifications and suggestions and create effective channels of collaboration. 16
Future work
Investigate to what extent the students were improved in other non-cognitive aspects considered important to complete a wiki project
▪ self-organization, ▪ collaboration, ▪ attitudes towards technology ▪ and openness
Attempt to deeply investigate and explain how the students have benefited from their involvement in the activity Analyze students’ interactions (using log files)
design additional wiki-based activities in a variety of educational settings
investigate the learners’ behavioral intention to use wiki technology using technology acceptance models
17
Thank you for your attention!!!
18
Nikolaos TseliosPanagiota AltanopoulouVassilis Komis ICT in Education Group, Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, University of Patras http://www.ecedu.upatras.gr/icte/ 26500 Rio, Patras, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
References
Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105-122.
Duffy, T., & Kirkley, J. (2004). Learner-Centred theory and practice in distance education cases from higher education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mindel, J., & Verma, S. (2006). Wikis for teaching and leading. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 18(1), 1-23.
Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designing knowledge management systems for teaching and learning with wild technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(3), 311-320.
West, J.A. & West, M.L. (2009). Using Wikis for Online Collaboration. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
19
Wiki Screenshots
20
Using wikis in education( West & West, 2009)
21
• Class encyclopedia• glossary• Electronic book
Knowledge construction
Critical thought
• Case studies• Structured debate• Annotated bibliography
Contextual
applicatio
n
• Organize design activities• Story creation• Organize real-world
activities
Are the wikis suitable to design learning activities?
Web 2 has brought much greater attention to collaboration on the Web, and this has begun to flow into e-learning
Wiki is about making something, not consuming something
Wikis are open-nature and can provide strong opportunities for collaboration, critical thinking and reflection
Central tenets of sociocultural views of learning, and in particular of project based learning (Duffy & Kirkley, 2004)
Wikis are also easy to learn and usable
BUT… the open nature of technology and the dynamic form of collaboration poses the necessity for coordination among members in order to optimize cooperation with emphasis on learning rather than manipulating the environment
The goal is not to provide learning using traditional approaches is to provide the context upon which learning is taking place in an authentic
way22
