3.1 Participants and - University of Hong Kongweb.hku.hk/~samchu/docs/Chu (in press) The...

Cited as: Chu, S.K.W., Zhang, Y., Chen, K., Chan, C.K., Lee, C.W.Y., Zou, E., & Lau, W. (in press). The effectiveness of wikis for project-based learning in different disciplines in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education.

The effectiveness of wikis for project-based learning in different disciplines in higher education

Samuel Kai Wah Chu a,1,Yin Zhanga,b, Katherine Chenc, Chi Keung Chand, Celina Wing Yi Leea, Ellen Zoue, Wilfred Lauf

a Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China

b Department of Education, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, P. R. China c Faculty of Arts, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. Chinad Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. Chinae Faculty of Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USAf Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China

Abstract

Concerning the effectiveness of using wikis for project-based learning in higher education, this study compared the perceptions and actions among students in three undergraduate courses of different disciplines, English Language Studies, Information Management, and Mechanical Engineering, who used wikis in their course assignments. Using a triangulation methodology, the study shows that students mostly hold positive attitudes towards the use of wikis for project-based learning. However, significant differences exist in 5 aspects, such as “Motivation” and “Knowledge Management”, in the questionnaire among all participants. Additionally, the level of participation and core actions on the wikis vary among students of the three disciplines. These findings can be explained by the variations in participants’ previous learning experiences, their technical backgrounds and the relationship between learning goals and collaborative learning. A series of insights are offered in the context of the use of wikis in project-based learning in higher education.

Keywords: Wiki, Project-Based Learning, Collaboration

1. Introduction

The popularity of social media in the past few decades has motivated many researchers to utilize social media tools, services and applications for educational activities in higher education (Gikas & Grant, 2013; Moran, Seaman, & Tinti-Kane, 2011; Tess, 2013). Compared with traditional media, which emphasize a uni-directional knowledge transmission and acquisition, social media focus more on active participation, collaboration, and knowledge sharing among users (Mao, 2014). As such, some researchers believed that substantial changes in educational approaches will take place with the adoption of social media in higher education (Anderson, 2008; Tess, 2013; Vartiainen, Liljeström, & Enkenberg, 2012). Hung and Yuen (2010) urged that technology integration courses be redesigned to leverage social media. Although it seems that advances in technology have demanded changes in educational approaches, the primary impetus behind the changes still lies in the increasing need to develop students’ key competency for teamwork and collaboration during their course of study (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2013). Professionals today have to cope with increasingly sophisticated problems and to complete tasks that require expertise from different disciplines. In many cases, success depends largely upon teamwork (Dettmer, Knackendoffel, & Thurston, 2012). Students today need to be equipped with collaboration capabilities when they graduate from universities (Khine & Saleh, 2010; Slater & Ravid, 2010). Until now, even though many scholars have been involved in research on the effects and limitations of social media with respect to education, most studies have mainly focused on the effects of the technical aspects of social media on learning; for example, the comparison of the technological affordances of different types of social media tools for collaborative learning (Hmelo-Silver, Chernobilsky, & Nagarajan, 2009; Ioannou, Brown, & Artino, 2015; Suthers, Vatrapu, Medina, Joseph, & Dwyer, 2008), and neglected reflective analysis on the instructional 1 Corresponding author. Tel: +852 22415894Email address: [email protected] (S.K.W. Chu), [email protected] (Y. Zhang)

/tt/file_convert/5a76af5d7f8b9ad22a8da236/document.docx 2/11/2017 4:12 PM 1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

approaches for learning with the use of social media.

Project-based learning as an instructional method has been introduced into social media environment with the aim of facilitating collaboration in higher education (Biasutti & EL-Deghaidy, 2015; Hamid & Mansor, 2012; Popescu, 2014). However, little is known about how students in different disciplinary courses perceive the affordances of social media for collaborative project-based learning. Since students are the direct beneficiaries of the intervention, it is logical for us to explore their point of views. To fill this research gap, the authors conducted an empirical study to explore whether the effects of social media tools (in particular, wikis) on project-based learning vary in different disciplines from the perceptions of students.

2. Literature review

In this literature review, an overview of research on wikis, project-based learning, and using wikis in project-based learning is provided. Besides, the theoretical foundations of using wikis in project-based learning on which we based the study are described.

2.1 Wikis for higher education

With the trend of bringing social media into classrooms, accompanied with the ongoing demand for students to develop teamwork and collaboration skills, social software, such as wikis, which support collaborative learning, have attracted considerable attention in higher education in recent years (Ertmer et al., 2011; Judd, Kennedy, & Cropper, 2010; Malinen, 2015). According to Leuf and Cunningham (2001), a wiki is a hypertext system that allows users to record and change their posts; a wiki is also a database within which users can create and edit their own webpages. Put simply, a wiki is a web-based tool for individuals to build up hypertexts incrementally and collaboratively (Cole, 2009; Shih, Tseng, & Yang, 2008). In light of three key features of wikis – open editing, a revision tracking mechanism, and a discussion feature – the potential of wikis to promote effective learning is gaining increasing interest among educators (Roussinos & Jimoyiannis, 2013; Zheng, Niiya, & Warschauer, 2015). With open editing, students can create their wiki pages simply by adding hypertexts and can also incorporate multimedia to develop their wikis for knowledge building. Additionally, the track changes feature of wikis can promote collaboration and support students’ higher order thinking skills through revisions of shared documents with peers (Sanden & Darragh, 2011). As for the wiki’s discussion features, they provide opportunities for students to detect problems, settle controversies, and reach agreements to revise the shared pages (Liou & Lee, 2011; Matthew & Callaway, 2008; Nami & Marandi, 2014). With these features, wikis have been mostly used as tools to facilitate group projects (Abdekhodaee, Kourosh, Modarres, Chase, & Ross, 2015).

Apart from supporting students’ learning, wikis also have the potential to help teachers make appropriate judgments and decisions in teaching and assessment. A common problem in group learning is that teachers find it difficult to distinguish contributions among group members, which may cause discontent or complaints from students who think that their contribution and efforts were “stolen by” the free-riders. Such lack of transparency also makes it challenging for teachers to provide timely support and guidance to individual students. With the revision history function of wikis, students’ collaborative process has become transparent to teachers, so teachers can supervise the learning process, provide effective feedback, and make pedagogical decisions more easily (Lai & Ng, 2011).

Much theoretical and empirical research has shown that wikis can enhance students’ collaborative learning in higher education contexts. For instance, Salaber (2014) focused on students’ learning outcomes in a postgraduate course using a wiki and discovered that the implementation of wiki activities resulted in enhanced collaborative learning, improvement of learning outcome, and facilitation of students’ development of high-level thinking skills. Roussinos and Jimoyiannis’s (2013) investigation into students’ beliefs and perceptions of a wiki-based collaborative learning activity also showed that wikis were effective in enhancing students’ group assignments and collaborative learning. Moreover, in De Wever et al.’s (2015) study, surveys, log-file analyses, group product scores and pre- and post-test scores were integrated to investigate learning experiences, learning behavior, the content knowledge and the quality of wiki tasks, which provided researchers and educators a comprehensive understanding of the effects of using wikis for student learning. In sum, in the past decade, many empirical studies have showed that wikis have been effectively used to enhance students’ collaborative work (e.g., Judd, Kennedy, & Cropper, 2010; Malinen, 2015).

However, some studies have revealed that using wikis for projects does not necessarily ensure effective collaboration among group members (Choy & Ng, 2007). For example, students are often reluctant to amend others' work (Blau & Caspi, 2009); they tend to focus only on information they contributed (Wheeler, Yeomans,


& Wheeler, 2008). Some possible reasons for this may relate to students’ perceptions of amending others’ work. For instance, students often feel that editing others’ work is inappropriate (Coyle Jr, 2007), and they do not wish to interfere with “somebody else’s material” (Konja & Ben-Zvi, 2008). In addition, students may not take advantage of the wiki collaborative features as they may prefer to work in isolation, resulting in very limited support from group members (Boling, Hough, Krinsky, Saleem, & Stevens, 2012). Therefore, a wiki per se cannot guarantee effective collaboration among learners, and instructional support is critically needed in order to generate high-level collaborative activities and help students develop collaborative skills (Cole, 2009; De Wever et al., 2015; Wichmann & Rummel, 2013). As a useful instructional strategy, project-based learning has been introduced by many researchers to bring about productive group work, in which projects are pertinent to learners' real worlds and require students’ active engagement in the process of collecting resources, communicating ideas, and evaluating concrete products (Boss & Krauss, 2014; Howard, 2002; Koh, Herring, & Hew, 2010).

2.2 Project-based learning in higher education

Project-based learning refers to engaging students in accomplishing a project in real-world context, through which students move towards developing knowledge and skills related to the project (Cavanaugh, 2004). According to Lipson et al.’s (2007) research, there are three characteristics that an ideal project-based learning should exhibit: process-oriented, context-related and student-centered. As a process-oriented endeavor, project-based learning serves to drive learning activities that culminate in a final product (Bell, 2010; Land & Zembal-Saul, 2003), and students’ learning of knowledge, skills and dispositions are embedded in the process of project development (Cavanaugh, 2004). In project-based learning, students are provided with context-related projects in which students’ learning experiences reflect real-world collaborative problem-solving practices (Olesen & Jensen, 1999; Thomas, 2000). Students’ are required to participate actively in project-based learning and take the initiative to explore ways to complete a task. By contrast, teachers act as facilitators in creating the conditions necessary for students to work with each other (Pascarella, Terenzini, & Feldman, 2005; Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005).

In the early 1900s, Kilpatrick (1918) introduced project-based learning as an instructional approach in K-12 education. With its successes in schools, and project-based learning gradually spread to professional education and higher education (Cavanaugh, 2004; Koh et al., 2010; Von Kotze & Cooper, 2000). Project-based learning has advantages over traditional didactic instruction in promoting students’ professional development in several aspects. First, the primary learning goal of project-based learning is the cultivation of life skills (e.g. teamwork, communication), whereas the learning goal of traditional instruction is the acquisition of knowledge (Lipson et al., 2007). Second, the learning materials of project-based learning are developed by students during their discovery process, whereas the learning materials of traditional instruction are textbooks or assigned reading resources. Last but not least, project-based learning requires students to approach projects in an interdisciplinary way, work together as a community, and solve open, sophisticated ill-structured problems in a real world situation, whereas traditional instruction guides students to learn knowledge from systematically-organized textbooks, and to answer predesigned well-structured questions individually.

Many studies on the practices of group work have shown the significance of the project-based method in higher education. Lipson et al. (2007) conducted a case study in MIT to explore freshmen’s perceptions of a project-based learning community, and the results indicated that students showed positive attitudes towards it. After working with 60 project groups, Yang and Cheng (2010) concluded that project-based learning had positive effects on the development of students’ creativity and innovation, as well as life skills of teamwork and communication. Bilgin, Karakuyu and Ay’s (2015) research showed that undergraduates in primary education developed better performance skills in science and technology teaching; their self-efficacy beliefs in project-based learning has increased more than the students instructed by traditional methods. Besides, Hung, Hwang and Huang (2012) found that technology-aided project-based learning was effective in enhancing students’ motivation in science learning and their capability in problem solving.

2.3 Using wikis in project-based learning

So far, a considerable amount of research on the application of wikis in project-based learning for different disciplines has reported promising findings. For instance, Hamid and Mansor’s (2012) experimental research showed various potentials of wikis in enhancing interest, participation and peer editing through a fun activity of collaborative story writing on a wiki site among 15 ESL (i.e. English as a Second Language) postgraduate students in Malaysia; Biasutti and EL-Deghaidy (2015) investigated the effects of a wiki within the framework of IPBL (Interdisciplinary Project-based Learning) in a virtual environment and found that the wiki had a


significant impact on students’ collaborative work. Popescu (2014) also reported a successful case study of using a wiki as a project-based learning support tool for 215 students’ learning in the Web Applications Design course over 4 years.

2.4 Theoretical framework of wiki-supported project-based learning

The theoretical framework of wiki-supported project-based learning is based on social constructivist theory and the engagement theory (Biasutti & EL-Deghaidy, 2015; Hazari, North, & Moreland, 2009). This study integrates features of social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) and the engagement theory (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998), and puts forward a clear integrated conceptual model of the pedagogy as illustrated in Figure 1.

Instructional Design

Group Work Project based Authentic focus

Engagement Theory

Wiki-supported Project-based Learning (sample groups)

ENGL

Student 1

Student 2 Student 3

Interaction

Social Constructivist Theory

BSIM

Student 1

Student 2 Student 3

Interaction

MECH

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework of wiki-supported project-based learning

This model elucidates that the instructional design of wiki-supported project-based learning was supported by the engagement theory, in which the learning experience is enhanced by learning collaboratively (Relating), learning with project-based approaches (Creating), and learning with realistic focus (Donating) (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998). On top of these three elements, the theory also suggests that student’s engagement in learning can be facilitated with technology. As previous research has shown that the use of wikis has potential in facilitating students’ engagement (Hazari et al., 2009; Strickland & Xie, 2012), it is suggested that, when considering introducing wikis in learning, instruction with wikis is required to address the three criteria by providing an environment for students to make their points clearly, share thoughts with peers freely, and work collaboratively to finish a projects related practical problems (Cole, 2009).


In addition, when introducing wikis in learning, social constructivism is recommended as a theoretical basis for effective learning (Biasutti & EL-Deghaidy, 2015; Chu, Lee, & King, 2012; Hazari et al., 2009). Constructivism focuses on students’ active role in knowledge sharing and building, and requires instructional attention to students’ learning motivation and their abilities to apply what they learn to practical problems (Chu, 2008; Chu, Siu, Liang, Capio, & Wu, 2013; Cunningham & Duffy, 1996). Under the constructivist theory, instruction with wikis is expected to align with constructivist learning by providing social interaction, embedding learning in real-world cases, appreciating exploration of disagreement, and encouraging application of constructed knowledge (Bruner, 1990; Buck, 2004; Karasavvidis, 2010; Vygotsky, Hanfmann, & Vakar, 2012). Without constructivism, the use of wikis cannot guarantee the quality of student interaction, neither can it affect students’ knowledge construction in positive ways (Bower, Woo, Roberts, & Watters, 2006; Veerman & Veldhuis-Diermanse, 2001).

Under the constructivist theory, the traditional exam-based learning which emphasizes rote learning and knowledge transmission from teacher to students has been shifted towards a student-centered instructional approach, i.e. project-based learning (Chu, 2008). From the above analysis of project-based learning, it can be seen that project-based learning has three characteristics, i.e. process-oriented, context-related and student-centered (Lipson et al., 2007), and these characteristics conform to constructivist theory. Therefore, it infers that project-based learning embodies constructivist instructional ideas (Bell, 2010; Boss & Krauss, 2014).

2.5 Rationale for this study

Although a considerable number of studies on the application of wikis in project-based learning have reported promising findings, there are still limitations. With wikis being applied to an increasingly diverse range of courses, little is known about how students from different disciplines perceive the use of wikis for collaborative learning. According to Hamid, Waycott, Kurnia, and Chang (2015), understanding students’ perceptions of online social networking in collaboration work can help tailor educational activities to meet students’ preferred learning needs, which can improve student engagement. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the effectiveness of wikis for project-based learning from the viewpoint of students. Moreover, most of the previous research was discussed in the context of a single area of study without a comparison of different scenarios of wiki use in various disciplines, and students’ specific learning modes with wikis in different disciplines have hitherto been neglected. As Harris, Mishra, and Koehler (2009) proposed, the ways of inquiry and expression in disciplines have varied in essence, thus, the variety of subject content could be a critical factor in influencing the quality of project-based learning in wiki settings.

To fill the research gap, this study adopted a broader perspective to compare and analyze students’ perceptions and activities concerning the use of wikis for project collaboration in different disciplines in higher education. Specifically, three courses of distinct disciplines were chosen in the present research, namely, English Language Studies (ENGL), Information Management (BSIM), and Mechanical Engineering (MECH). In each course, students were instructed to conduct group projects using wikis. This study aims at identifying the educational needs of students in different disciplines, with the ultimate goal in creating more favorable learning contexts and more effective instructional strategies integrating wikis in varied undergraduate disciplines.

3. Method

Based on the gap identified in the literature, the main research questions for this study were as follows:

1. How effective are wikis for project-based learning in higher education?

2. What are the disciplinary students’ perceptions of using wikis for project collaboration?

3. What kinds of activity patterns are observed in group projects?

4. Are there disciplinary differences when wikis are used for project-based learning in higher education?

To answer the research questions, seventy-one undergraduate students from three different courses were invited to participate in the study. Students’ viewpoints toward using wikis for project collaboration, concerning, for example, group interaction, interest in projects, and usage of the wiki tool were collected through questionnaires upon completion of the courses. In addition, twenty-one students were selected for interviews on their opinions and feelings about their experiences of using wikis for project collaboration. In addition, students’ actions on the wikis were analyzed. In order to address these research questions, a methodological triangulation approach was


adopted in the study. According to Fellows and Liu (1997), a methodological triangulation approach refers to the adoption of multiple research methods to investigate the same theme, which enables both qualitative and quantitative data to be collected to test a research proposal (Love, Holt, & Li, 2002). The advantages of the methodological triangulation approach lie not only in increasing the validity of insights but also in facilitating a deeper understanding of the phenomenon, thus helping to reveal unique findings (Guion, Diehl, & McDonald, 2011; Olsen, 2004). In the study, the methodological triangulation approach consisted of a questionnaire survey with 7-point Likert scale, interviews with students and teachers, and wiki action analysis.

3.1 Participants and context

Using a convenience sample of participants, seventy-one undergraduate students from second to third year and three teachers from three different disciplines in a public university in Hong Kong were invited to the study. The subjects included fifteen students from English Language Studies (ENGL), twenty-two students from Information Management (BSIM), thirty-four students from Mechanical Engineering (MECH), and one teacher from each course. Due to different learning nature, content and objectives in these three courses, students from each course were required to form groups to finish different projects with the help of wikis.

The ENGL students, in groups of 3 to 4, were required to submit a project report on a research about language and identity on Google Site, comprising an introduction, literature review, methodology, data analysis and conclusion. The research project contributes to 50% of the total course grade, including 10% on the proposal, 10% on an in-class presentation, and 30% on group project write up with individual reflection.

The BSIM students, in groups of 5 to 6, were instructed to conduct a case analysis on knowledge management practice in an organization in Hong Kong. They were required to produce a book chapter (about 3,000 – 4,000 words) on PBworks which consists of a summary, introduction, literature review, analysis of results and conclusion. The group project contributes to 40% of the course grade.

The MECH students, in groups of 2 to 3, were asked to hand in a project report on PBworks, which contributes to 20% of the final score, documenting their weekly work progress on developing a Windows program to solve an engineering-related problem.

The study was conducted based on a special regional background. Universities in Hong Kong, with the support of a Teaching Development Grant, had initiated the implementation of wikis to support Problem Based Learning in a number of programmes across different disciplines. Thus, teachers had rich experiences in applying wikis in project-based learning. In this study, since both the BSIM and the MECH teachers preferred PBworks (http://pbworks.com), and the ENGL teachers were more familiar with Google Site (http://sites.google.com), these two wiki platforms were adopted in the study. Both of them were effective means of adding, editing, and sharing information for collaborative writing. They allowed students to create online portfolios to document their thoughts and progress, and provided a secure, easily accessible environment for them to capture knowledge from peers, share files in groups, and manage projects from any computers or mobile devices. Before students were asked to carry out their projects on the chosen wiki platform, a 1.5-hour workshop was conducted by a wiki expert to help students understand some basic operation of wikis. The workshop consists of a step-to-step demonstration on how to set up a wiki site on PBworks.

3.2 Research instruments

A questionnaire was chosen as the main survey method to collect quantitative data to measure the effectiveness of the wikis for undergraduate students’ project-based learning in different disciplines. Interviews were conducted with students and teachers, and wiki actions recorded by the revision history function of wikis were analyzed to interpret why and how students’ actions on project collaboration could be directly and indirectly explained through qualitative data.

3.2.1 Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed on the basis of Hazari, North and Moreland’s (2009) survey instrument. Hazari et al. (2009) once designed a questionnaire to assess students’ perceptions of wikis which has been well validated and used in several studies (Chu et al., 2013; Rasmussen, Lewis, & White, 2013). The questionnaire was applied as an instrument for the analysis of students’ perceptions of wikis. Some modifications of the questionnaire are made in order to satisfy the research purpose. A 7-point Likert scale was applied in the questionnaire, which permitted the use of statistical techniques to analyze the data. Questions were divided into five categories which reflected five influential factors in students’ perceptions of


using wikis for project collaboration: Overall Learning, Motivation, Group Interaction, Technology, and Knowledge Management (see Table 1). Among them, the Knowledge Management factor and six new corresponding questions were designed by the authors to explore how students viewed the wiki platform as a tool for facilitating knowledge management.

As the questionnaire was revised with the addition of the Knowledge Management factor, a reliability test was carried out. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to estimate internal consistency among items. Cronbach's alpha was 0.86 for Overall Learning, 0.85 for Motivation, 0.88 for Group Interaction, 0.88 for Technology, and 0.91 for Knowledge Management. Therefore, all factors were assessed to possess good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.8).

Table 1: Questionnaire

Category Description

Overall Learning Students’ perceptions of interest in course, retention of material, active learning, and use of course material to meet learning objectives.

Motivation Students’ perceptions of their motivation to use the wiki tool, by investigating criteria such as effort, time, interest, benefits, recommendations, and preferences.

Group Interaction Students’ group interaction, consensus building, collaborative and cooperative learning.

Technology Students’ perceptions of ease of use, user interface, and technical issues.

Knowledge management

Students’ perceptions of the wiki platform as a tool for facilitating knowledge creation, knowledge capturing, knowledge sharing, knowledge dissemination, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application

Note: adapted from Hazari, North and Moreland’s (2009) questionnaire

3.2.2 Interview

The interview consisted of a series of questions asking students about their opinions and feelings with respect to their experiences of using wikis for project collaboration. For instance, one question was “Do you find the features of Google sites (or PBworks) useful in co-constructing your group project work online?” Another question asked students to give their opinions of the educational affordances and constraints of wikis: “Can you further explain the benefits and drawbacks you found?” Interviews were conducted with students in ENGL (n = 6) and BSIM (n = 15). Due to coordination problems, interviews with MECH students were not conducted.

In order to gain a better understanding of wikis’ role in the practice of project-based learning, three teachers were also interviewed. The interview consisted of a series of questions in order to ask teachers about their opinions on the adoption of wikis in their courses, as well as their evaluation of the effects of wikis on students’ project-based learning. For example, one question was “Were there any differences in the project outcomes when the wiki is used versus without the support of the wiki?” Another question was designed to ask teachers to consider if wikis could help them assess students’ progress or workload distribution within the group. Teacher were also inquired about wikis’ effects on students’ changes of motivation, group interaction, and knowledge management ability and habits.

3.2.3 Activity patterns on wikis

With the detailed revision history logs, all the students’ online activities on the wiki platform were recorded. These activities were classified into two categories, page modification and commenting. Page modification incorporates adding, editing, deleting and moving sentences on a wiki page. Commenting denotes text comments or dialogues posted on wiki pages. For example, four ENGL students teamed up and created a website on Google Sites to show their collaboration and contributions to project “Linguistic repertoire and social positioning: a case study of a Korean citizen in Hong Kong”. A screen capture of revision history is shown in Figure 2. In the figure, each student in the group contributed several versions of the “Conclusion” webpage, and he (or she) could easily return to one of previous versions of the webpage by clicking the “Revert to this version” link on the right. Apart from students, the ENGL course teacher could easily keep up with changes that


each student made to webpages by selecting the “subscribe to page (or site) changes” in “more actions” menu on the upper right corner of the project website.

Fig. 2. A screen capture of revision history on Google Sites

For the analysis of the activity patterns on wikis, not only was the number of actions representing the students’ performance tracked, different types of activities were also coded and analyzed. The page modification actions were coded and categorized based on the taxonomy (see Figure 3) modified by Chu et al. (2012), which was derived from Meishar-Tal and Gorsky’s (2010) taxonomy. Page modification actions were categorized into modifications made on sentences and those within sentences. Modifications made on sentences comprise adding, deleting, and moving sentences. Modifications made within sentences include editing format, editing content (e.g. words, images, or links), and editing grammar. Students’ comments were classified into six non-exclusive categories based on Chu, Lee and King’s (2012) comment classification (See Table 2), which was adapted from the taxonomy of Judd et al. (2010).

Fig. 3. Taxonomy of page modification actions (Chu et al., 2012)


LinksImagesWords

GrammarContentFormat

EditingMovingDeletingAdding

WithinSentence

OnSentence

Actions

Table 2: Taxonomy of commenting (Chu et al., 2012)

Category DescriptionContent A comment on the selection, organization, and presentation of ideas.Form A comment on the mechanical aspects of writing, such as grammar, spelling, and format.Work A comment on the communication and coordination of group work.Individual A comment addressed to individual group members.

Group A comment addressed to the whole group.Reply A comment written in response to another comment.

4. Results

4.1 Students’ perceptions of the usefulness of wiki for collaborative learning

In general, the results showed that students’ perceptions of the usefulness of wikis were comparably positive, with most ratings above the mid-point (4.0) on the 7-point Likert scale. According to the result of a one-way ANOVA, gender of the participants was not a significant factor influencing their responses.

However, there were some differences in responses to the five factors (i.e. overall learning, motivation, group interaction, technology, and knowledge management) among students from different disciplines. The Kruskal-Wallis test was utilized to determine the difference in students’ responses to the five factors in the three disciplines, i.e. ENGL, BSIM and MECH, and significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) were found on nine survey items (Q5, Q8, Q10, Q16, Q18, Q22, Q23, Q24, Q25). In order to further examine if there were statistical differences between two disciplines, the Mann-Whitney test with Bonferroni correction was conducted on these nine items as post-hoc analysis, and significant differences were observed (Mann-Whitney, p < 0.017) except for Q16. Detailed analysis is shown in the following.

4.1.1. Overall learningAs shown in Table 3, most students held positive attitudes to the Overall Learning factor, especially to the item concerning wikis’ usefulness in retaining material (mean rating 4.79), with the BSIM group giving higher ratings than the other two groups. Significant statistical differences (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.05) among the three disciplines were found on item Q5, and by using the Mann-Whitney test, the MECH group’s scores on the effectiveness of wikis in facilitating course objectives (Q5) were found to be significantly lower than the BSIM group (p < 0.017).

Table 3: Students’ responses to the Overall Learning factorSurvey Items Mean

(SD)Sig.(Kruskal-Wallis)

Significant Differences Found between Groups (Mann-Whitney Sig.)

All (n=42) ENGL (n=8)

BSIM (n=22)

MECH (n=12)

Q1. Use of the wiki enhanced my interest in the course

4.45 (1.38)

4.00 (1.69) 4.77 (1.38) 4.17 (1.12)

Q2. I would like to see wikis used in other courses

4.52 (1.40)

3.63 (1.85)* 4.86 (1.39) 4.50 (0.80)

Q3. I will retain more material as a result of using the wiki

4.79 (1.14)

4.88 (1.55) 4.95 (1.13) 4.42 (0.79)

Q4. I participated in the assignment more because of using the wiki

4.07 (1.58)

3.75 (1.91)* 4.45 (1.63) 3.58 (1.16)*

Q5. Use of the wiki aided me in achieving course objectives

4.50 (1.17)

4.38 (1.60) 4.86 (0.94) 3.92 (1.08)*

0.040 BSIM-MECH (0.012)

Notes: Ratings are based on a 7-point Likert scale: 1 – “Strongly disagree” and 7 – “Strongly agree”.*Mean score below mid-point.With Bonferroni correction, the critical value for significance in the Mann-Whitney post-hoc tests is 0.017.


4.1.2. Motivation

As shown in Table 4, the ENGL students gave comparatively low ratings to the items in the Motivation factor while the BSIM group gave high ratings. Significant statistical differences (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.05) among the three disciplines were found on item Q8 and Q10, and by using the Mann-Whitney test, the ENGL group’s scores on the two items were significantly lower than the BSIM group (p < 0.017), which showed that the ENGL group was less willing to regard the use of wikis as an important factor in their choosing projects compared with the BSIM group.

Table 4: Students’ responses to the Motivation factor

Survey Items Mean (SD) Sig.(Kruskal-Wallis)



BSIM (n=22)

MECH (n=12)

Q6. The benefit of using the wiki is worth the extra effort and time required to learn how to use it

4.71 (1.13) 4.88 (1.73) 4.86 (1.08) 4.33 (0.65)

Q7. I would recommend classes that use wikis to other students

4.76 (1.27) 4.25 (1.58) 5.14 (1.28) 4.42 (0.79)

Q8. I would prefer projects that use wikis over other projects that do not use wikis

3.98 (1.30)* 2.75 (1.49)*

4.50 (1.10) 3.83 (0.94)*

0.012 ENGL-BSIM (0.008)

Q9. I will continue to explore use of wikis for project-works

4.48 (1.13) 4.00 (1.85) 4.73 (0.98) 4.33 (0.65)

Q10. I stayed on the task more because of using the wiki

4.17 (1.38) 2.88 (1.46)*

4.59 (1.30) 4.25 (0.97) 0.011 ENGL-BSIM (0.006)


4.1.3. Group interaction

As shown in Table 5, most students held positive perceptions of the wikis’ role in improving collaborative learning (Q15), which was consistent with the finding of a previous study (Chu et al., 2013). However, the ENGL group gave comparatively lower ratings to wikis’ effectiveness in improving interaction (Q12) and group consensus (Q13). The BSIM group gave higher ratings (in 4 out of 5 questions) than the other two groups.

Table 5: Students’ responses to the Group Interaction factor

Survey Items Mean (SD)All (n=42) ENGL (n=8) BSIM (n=22) MECH (n=12)

Q11. I liked seeing other students’ interaction with material I posted on the wiki

4.60 (1.33) 4.38 (2.00) 5.00 (1.11) 4.00 (0.95)

Q12. Use of the wiki for the assignment helped me interact more with students

4.40 (1.38) 3.75 (1.58)* 4.77 (1.31) 4.17 (1.27)

Q13. Because of using the wiki, my group was able to come to a consensus faster

4.29 (1.18) 3.38 (1.51)* 4.55 (1.01) 4.42 (1.00)

Q14. I learned more because of information posted by other students’ in the wiki

4.69 (1.10) 4.88 (1.55) 4.86 (0.99) 4.25 (0.87)

Q15. Use of the wiki promoted collaborative learning

4.98 (1.32) 4.75 (1.58) 5.36 (1.26) 4.42 (1.08)

Notes: Ratings are based on a 7-point Likert scale: 1 – “Strongly disagree” and 7 – “Strongly agree”.


*Mean score below mid-point.

4.1.4. Technology

As shown in Table 6, even though the ENGL group rated the wiki’s technological functions higher than the other two groups, they showed less confidence in the wiki’s effectiveness in improving their learning (Q20) compared with other two groups. Significant statistical differences (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.05) among the three disciplines were found on item Q16 and Q18, and by using the Mann-Whitney test, the MECH group’s scores on item Q18 was found to be significantly lower than the ENGL group (p < 0.017). It showed that the MECH students did not view the wiki as an easy tool to use owing to the technical barriers they encountered, and they might have difficulties in browsing and editing information in wikis compared with the ENGL group.

Table 6: Students’ responses to the Technology factor

Survey Items Mean (SD)

Sig.(Kruskal-Wallis)



BSIM (n=22)

MECH (n=12)

Q16. The wiki interface and features were overall easy to understand

4.60

(1.25)

5.13 (0.83) 4.82 (1.18) 3.83

(1.34)*

0.038 p > 0.017

Q17. Benefits of using the wiki outweighed any technical challenges of its use

4.43

(1.13)

4.75 (1.39) 4.59 (0.85) 3.92

(1.31)*

Q18. Browsing/editing information in the wiki was easy

4.50

(1.49)

5.25 (1.91) 4.68 (1.25) 3.67

(1.30)*

0.024 ENGL-MECH

(0.016)

Q19. Compared to other online discussion board, the wiki was easier to use

4.60

(1.40)

4.88 (1.13) 4.82 (1.22) 4.00 (1.76)

Q20. Technical features in the wiki helped enhance my learning

4.38

(1.31)

3.62 (2.00)* 4.68 (1.09) 4.33 (0.98)


4.1.5. Knowledge management

The disciplinary distinction was most clearly revealed in terms of Knowledge Management. As shown in Table 7, although students generally gave high ratings to the Knowledge Management factor, the differences among their responses were conspicuous. By using the Kruskal-Wallis test among the three groups, significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) were found on four survey items, i.e. Q22, Q23, Q24, Q25. Further, compared with the ENGL group and BSIM group, the MECH group tended to give a significantly lower rating to wikis’ usefulness in knowledge capturing, sharing, dissemination and acquisition (Mann-Whitney, p < 0.017).


Table 7: Students’ responses to the Knowledge Management factor

Survey Items Mean (SD) Sig. Significant Differences Found between Groups (Mann-Whitney Sig.)


BSIM (n=22)

MECH (n=12)

(Kruskal-Wallis)

Q21. Wiki is enabling for knowledge creation

4.50 (1.09) 4.00 (1.51) 4.77 (1.07) 4.33 (0.65)

Q22. Wiki is enabling for knowledge capturing

4.83 (1.10) 5.37 (1.06) 5.09 (1.11) 4.00 (0.60) 0.002 ENGL-MECH (0.005)BSIM-MECH (0.001)

Q23. Wiki is enabling for knowledge sharing

5.21 (1.05) 5.63 (0.92) 5.41 (1.14) 4.58 (0.67) 0.012 BSIM-MECH (0.011)

Q24. Wiki is enabling for knowledge dissemination


Q25. Wiki is enabling for knowledge acquisition


Q26. Wiki is enabling for knowledge application

4.71 (1.15) 5.13 (0.99) 4.77 (1.11) 4.33 (1.30)

Notes: Ratings are based on a 7-point Likert scale: 1 – “Strongly disagree” and 7 – “Strongly agree”.*Mean score below mid-point. With Bonferroni correction, the critical value for significance in the Mann-Whitney post-hoc tests is 0.017.

To find out more about students’ perceptions of the use of wikis in their group projects, interviews were conducted with 21 participants after the survey: 6 ENGL students and 15 BSIM students. As shown in Table 8, the ENGL students exhibited more positive attitudes towards Technology (25 out of 40 statements) and Knowledge Management (14 out of 21 statements), but they reported more negative views of the Motivation (8 out of 11 statements), which was consistent with findings from the questionnaires. Concerning Knowledge Management, a student mentioned, “Google sites allowed us to learn from works done by students who previously took the course, which gave us more understanding and thus guided us on how we should approach and structure our project” (03ENGL). Regarding Technology，another student reported, “Compared to other software, Google Sites is more suitable for beginners. It was convenient to use” (02ENGL). In reference to the Motivation factor, a student stated, “I won’t use it unless it is compulsory. I only perceive it as a tool for the assignment” (01ENGL). In general, the most frequently mentioned negative aspect of learning with a wiki was that the wiki had brought them more workload.

The BSIM students made more positive comments on the effects of wikis on project-based learning, except for the Knowledge Management factor. Students felt that wikis were not as effective as they had expected. For example, some pointed out, “by using wiki, we found it difficult to come up with a conclusion, so it is not helpful to enhance knowledge” (01BSIM), and “in terms of knowledge sharing, at the end we used traditional methods to do so, and the objective of wiki seems just for posting things” (09BSIM).

Table 8: Ratio of students’ positive statements to negative statements in five aspectsOverall Learning Motivation Group

InteractionTechnology Knowledge

ManagementENGL (N=6 students)

0.56(9/14) 0.38(3/8) 0.83(10/12) 1.67(25/15) 2.00(14/7)

BSIM (N=15 students)

1.63(13/8) 1(19/19) 2.58(31/12) 1.71(36/21) 0.56(20/36)

4.2 Activity patterns on wikis

Among the three disciplines, the highest frequency of wiki use by ENGL students was very noticeable: about ten times more than that of the MECH students (See Table 9). Also, there was a remarkable difference in the amount of wiki actions per student between the ENGL (120.8) and MECH (3.4) groups.


In terms of word level changes, it was observed that the number of word level changes by BSIM students was higher than that of the two other groups, while the most frequent actions by the ENGL students were sentence level changes. For the MECH students, it was found the main action was the “add” action. The number of other level changes was distinctly lower than that of the ENGL and BSIM students.

Despite the differences in the levels of wiki actions between students in different disciplines, a general pattern was discovered by the classification of activity actions on the wikis (see Table 9, and Figure 4). For sentence-level changes, adding sentences was noticeably the most frequent action carried out by the students, with the students tending to add rather than delete and move sentences, which was in line with previous studies on the use of wikis for collaborative writing (Chu et al., 2012). For within-sentence modifications, the most conspicuous action was editing words, followed by formatting, whereas the usage of images and links on the wikis was minimal.

Table 9: The actions performed by the students on the wikis

Modification on sentences Modification within sentences

Add Delete Move Format Grammar Words Images Links Total

ENGL(n=15)

Count 590(32.6%)

413(22.8%)

61(3.4%)

277(15.3%)

44(2.4%)

273(15.1%)

73(4.0%)

81(4.5%)

1812

Per student

39.3 27.5 4.1 18.5 2.9 18.2 4.9 5.4 120.8

BSIM

(n=22)

Count 466(34.6%)

197(14.8%)

40(2.9%)

116(8.7%)

118(8.6%)

369(28.1%)

5(0.4%)

24(1.8%)

1335

Per Student

21.2 9.0 1.8 5.3 5.4 16.8 0.2 1.1 60.7

MECH

(n=34)

Count 62(54.4%)

15(13.2%)

3(2.6%)

8(7.0%)

3(2.6%)

9(7.9%)

9(7.9%)

5(4.4%)

114

Per Student

1.8 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 3.4

Fig. 4. The proportion of actions on the wikis

The comments posted by the students were investigated by using the aforementioned scheme (see Table 2). A striking contrast between the number of ENGL students’ comments and actions was observed. Despite a large number of wiki actions generated from the ENGL students, they did not make any comments (See Table 10). It was noticed that the number of comments posted by BSIM students was remarkably greater than that of the other two groups. Among the categories of comment, Content was the most frequent type of comment, followed


by Reply and Group in the BSIM group. For MECH students, only eight comments were posted, of which Group was the most frequent category. Due to the few comments left by the ENGL and MECH students, no conclusions could be reached on the use of comment among the students of the three disciplines.

Table 10: The amount of comments made by students on the wikis

Content Form Work Individual Group Reply Total Comments/Student

ENGL(n=15)

0(0.0%)

0(0.0%)

0(0.0%)

0(0.0%)

0(0.0%)

0(0.0%)

0 0.0

BSIM(n=22)

84(48.0%)

7(4.0%)

16(9.1%)

9(5.1%)

20(11.4%)

39(22.3%)

175 7.95

MECH(n=34)

1(12.5%)

0(0.0%)

0(0.0%)

1(12.5%)

5(62.5%)

1(12.5%)

8 0.24

4.3 Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of wikis for project-based learning

In general, teacher interview data showed that teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of wikis for project-based learning were different. The ENGL and BSIM teachers had positive views on the adoption of wikis in their courses, while the MECH teacher had opposite views.

When teachers were asked about their design of wiki tasks, they provided different answers. Both ENGL and BSIM teachers mentioned that they cared more about the “knowledge exchange” (BSIM teacher) or “knowledge sharing” (ENGL teacher) role of wikis in project work. Therefore, they introduced wikis in creating virtual collaborative environment, in which students were instructed to work in groups to accomplish online project reports. The ENGL teacher even mentioned that “the wiki provides a good way of training students to be engaged in collaborative efforts and to take responsibilities of writing publicly.” Compared with ENGL and BSIM teachers, the MECH teacher introduced wikis to solve a practical problem: assignment management. He once collected assignments by email, and discovered that email was easily filled up by students’ project reports because the mailbox capacity was limited. Therefore, he hoped that the use of wikis could provide more space for the storage of assignments and help him better monitor students’ discussion process in groups. He required students to hand in a computer program, supplemented with a project report written on a wiki. He also suggested students to discuss computer program problems in the wiki.

Regarding differences in the project outcomes with the support of wikis, both ENGL and BSIM teachers responded that using wikis could help raise students’ awareness of knowledge exchange and facilitate their experiential learning. However, the MECH teacher had reservation on the effectiveness of wikis in facilitating students’ learning process. He explained that the nature of the MECH course and programming assignment could be the main reason why students were hesitant in using wiki. He elaborated that because programming problems could be complicated, “it may not be a good way to discuss the matter by just typing. Students want to have face-to-face discussion instead.” In addition, the teacher commented that students “usually discuss problems using concept maps and other graphical organizers,” it is inconvenient for them to keep a text-based progress report on the wiki as they have to “scan the materials.”

5. Discussion

This study provided empirical evidence that complements previous findings on the use of wikis for project-based learning in higher education. The findings revealed that most students recognized and valued the benefits of using wikis in project-based learning, supporting earlier claims concerning the pedagogical rationale for using wikis in education (e.g. Ebner, Kickmeier-Rust, & Holzinger, 2008; Elgort, 2007; Zheng et al., 2015). From students’ perceptions of learning with wikis, it could be seen that most students appeared to enjoy using the wiki, resulting in collaborative team work. According to students’ actions online, it could also be seen that students in some disciplines (i.e., BSIM and ENGL) were active in the use of wikis for learning. Moreover, the study revealed significant differences in students’ use of wikis between different disciplines.


5.1 Disciplinary difference and students’ perceptions to wikis in project-based learning

Firstly, the ENGL students’ overall responses to the questionnaire on using the wiki for project-based learning were positive, except that they gave low ratings to items on the Motivation factor, which was consistent with the interview results. When interviewed, some ENGL students reported that using the wiki was “tedious”, “time consuming” and “frustrating”. One student even mentioned that the extra workload caused by tackling wiki problems made her depressed. Heavy workload brought on by the use of wikis might have a negative impact on students’ intrinsic motivation. According to Dencheva and Zimmermann’s (2009) research, because of the workload involved in investing their own time in learning how to use a wiki, the group members might have hesitation in using wikis. In other words, once wikis were deemed extra workload for students, the students’ motivation would be negatively affected. However, previous research has shown that one of the reasons for the introduction of wikis into higher education was to improve students’ learning motivation (Davidson, 2012). How can such contradictory phenomena be explained? There is a Chinese proverb that goes, “A workman must sharpen his tools if he is to do his work well”, which implies that some time and energy should be invested in sharpening one’s tools or skills in handling the tools at the beginning in order to achieve intended results. As for wiki tools, two levels of learning exist. The first level is learning to use wikis. At this level, students are required to learn the basic functions of the wiki and how to solve technical problems associated with its applications. Since a considerable amount of time and patience may be needed in this initial stage, and students may experience some frustrations in the process. The second level of learning is learning with the wiki. Once students proceed to the second level with their sharpened skills, they will be able to use the wiki more freely and efficiently, which in turn will bring about positive effects on students’ learning motivation.

Secondly, compared with the ENGL students, the BSIM students gave higher ratings to Motivation factors and higher ratings to the other survey items in general. One of the reasons behind this finding may be that the BSIM students’ learning levels were higher than those of ENGL students. Bradlow, Hoch and Hutchinson’s (2002) research showed that people who spend more time on Internet are more likely to have better computer performance. They might have moved from the first learning level to the second learning level more quickly, resulting in greater enjoyment in learning with wikis. The other reason may be that the BSIM students are more inclined to explore and keep up with new information technology so they are in general more open to technology integration courses. It is not surprising to see that BSIM students, with their learning experiences and inclination to information technology, gave higher scores than the ENGL students in many aspects.

Thirdly, the MECH students gave lower ratings to the Technology factor than the other two groups. They showed little inclination to use the wiki to complete their projects (as shown in Q4 and Q5 in the Overall Learning factor), which was in line with the students’ actions on the wiki, where the MECH students exhibited a lower frequency of usage (see Table 9 and Table 10). Further investigation through interview data revealed that the use of the wiki had little connection to the learning goal set by the MECH teacher. As interpreted by the MECH teacher, students were required to hand in a computer program, supplemented with a project report. To fulfill the programming assignments, students needed to meet face-to-face with each other to discuss and find ways to solve problems. Even though wikis were used by students to finish project reports, the score for the project report only accounted for a small proportion of the total scores (20% for MECH). Therefore, the MECH students might not have wished to spend too much time and effort to complete their project reports by using the wiki. Also, the report for MECH was constructed to serve as an instruction manual for the computer program, which may not have required extensive discussion and elaboration on the content. This may explain why the MECH students carried out fewer editing actions and made very limited comments.

Finally, teachers had different views on the effectiveness of wikis for project-based learning, and they used wikis in different ways. It is found that the nature of the course, the final output of the group assignment, and the weighing of wiki component in the final course grade contribute largely to students’ perception and motivation in using wikis. When these factors are in balance, students’ learning experience can be enhanced. For example, when interviewed, an ENGL student (01ENGL) reported that wiki tasks made their voices heard online, which brought them different learning experiences than ever. Several BSIM student (e.g. 02BSIM, 05BSIM, 09BSIM) also mentioned that wiki tasks provided them chances of working on group projects, through which they could learn from each other.

In sum, the differences in the use of wikis between different disciplines provide insights into how technology might support different kinds of learning activities. First, students’ previous learning experiences and technical background need to be considered before students are required to finish a learning task with the use of technology. In the study, it was the different previous learning experiences and technical backgrounds that made


ENGL and BSIM students view wikis differently. While the ENGL students regarded using wikis as extra workload for learning, the BSIM students tended to view wikis as efficient tools for learning. Second, the relationship between learning goals and collaborative learning would affect students’ use of wikis. From the MECH students’ responses, it was found that students might avoid using wikis when they found little relationship between the learning goal and collaborative learning. Third, instructional design with wikis may influence students’ perceptions of wikis. All three teachers mentioned that the wiki was only a tool for learning. It infers that if we want wikis to have more positive effects on project-based learning, proper instructional design with wiki tasks is necessary. The MECH teacher mentioned that “the wiki may not be able to facilitate writing a computer program”. However, if wikis are carefully incorporated into instructional design, they can facilitate programming. Here is an example. When Jaeger (2015) tried to introduce a wiki in her programming course, she encouraged students to team up and build technical topic websites in the wiki, through which students were activated to collaboratively write explanatory text about the topic, collect sources about it, and write programming examples about it. Results showed that if students were allowed to discuss and reflect on key topics to the programming skills, their understanding of programming would be improved.

5.2 Correlation between students’ perceptions and actions on wikis

Another insight of this work relates to the relationship between students’ perceptions of wikis and their actions. Previous research has shown that the relationship between perception and action is complicated (Hecht, Vogt, & Prinz, 2001). Even though action and perception may interact with each other (Gallese, Craighero, Fadiga, & Fogassi, 1999), there exists no mutual cause-and-effect relationship between the two. Therefore, data from action and perception could complement each other and provide rich information for the research. In this study, perception data were collected from the questionnaire and interviews, and action data were gathered from log-files. When the data were triangulated, both supporting and contradicting findings on the relationship between perception and action were found. In terms of supporting findings, for instance, the questionnaire data showed that the MECH students showed little inclination to use the wiki in their projects, which is in line with their generally lack of activities on the wiki.

As for contradicting data, almost all students from the three disciplines gave the highest ratings to the Knowledge Management factor (see Table 7). However, their actions on the wikis did not correspond with the findings. According to Iverson and McPhee’s (2002) research, knowledge management actions consist of three actions of cultivation: celebration, articulation, and collaboration. Celebration refers to recognizing knowledge accomplishments and problems solved; in articulation, ideas and directions for activities are collected from members and synthesized into words, which serve for creative discussion; in collaboration, members work together to contribute to knowledge growth in appropriate ways (Sun & Deng, 2007). Based on the elaboration of knowledge management actions from previous studies, students’ comments on the wikis reflecting celebration, articulation and collaboration of their group activities could be regarded as their knowledge management actions. Due to limited comment circulation on the wikis (0 for ENGL; 7.95 for BSIM; 0.24 for MECH), it was concluded that students showed few knowledge management actions. One reason behind this finding may be that students had not mastered the functions of wiki well. For example, two BSIM students reported that they tended to conduct knowledge management activities through face-to-face interaction as they had not yet become used to the knowledge management functions in wikis. One thing that needs to be noted here is that the ENGL students made no comments on the wikis. The detailed analysis of the ENGL students’ performance and the wiki tool they used (i.e. Google Sites) showed that instead of using the commenting function of the Google Site, the ENGL students left comments within the wiki webpages whenever they faced difficulties. Those comments required follow-up by other group mates. Once issues were resolved, the comments were deleted from the webpage, which may explain why the ENGL group carried out more deleting actions on the wiki.

6. ConclusionThis study investigated the effectiveness of wikis for project-based learning in higher education from students’ perspectives. A mixed-methods approach, consisting of a quantitative survey design, a qualitative interview study and action analysis, was used to answer the research questions. Some important findings were revealed. First of all, wikis were found to be effective for project-based learning in higher education from the perceptions of most students and teachers. Second, disciplinary difference was found to be an important factor in affecting students’ perceptions and actions with respect to wikis in project-based learning. Third, in order to enhance the effectiveness of wikis for project-based learning, some factors, such as students’ previous learning experiences, their technical backgrounds and proper instructional design with wiki tasks, deserve more attention from teachers when they consider the adoption of wikis in their courses. Last of all, students’ perceptions of wikis and


their actions were consistent under some conditions, but contradictory under other conditions. This study not only sheds light on students’ perceptions and application of wikis in project-based learning, it also contributes to enhancing teachers’ understanding of and confidence in introducing wikis in their course design, helping them make good use of wikis to improve students’ collaborative learning in higher education.

This research collected data from a public university in Hong Kong; the number of participants was limited to 71 undergraduate students and three teachers. Moreover, two different wiki platforms were used by participants, which may have affected their participation and learning. Despite the limitations, the study has generated data to enhance the understanding of students’ roles as main “stakeholders” in project-based learning with wikis in higher education settings. Findings of the study will help teachers to reflect on instructional approaches based on students’ learning needs, and adopt social media to develop students’ collaboration capabilities. At the same time, the study calls for extensive research on teachers’ instructional design, which will provide rich information from the perceptions of teachers to support the utilization of wikis in a wide range of areas in higher education.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by “Using Web 2.0 technologies to enhance experiential and capstone learning in different HKU faculties (Jun. 28, 2010 - Jun. 27, 2012); Teaching Development Grant; The University of Hong Kong”. The contribution of the second author was supported by the Youth Fund for Research on Humanity and Social Science by the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (Project No. 14YJC880114), the United Board Faculty Scholarship Program (2016-2017), and Qingdao Social Science Planning Research Project (Project No. QDSKL1601031).

Uncategorized References

Abdekhodaee, A., Kourosh, D., Modarres, F., Chase, A.-M., & Ross, B. (2015). Wikis for group work: Encouraging transparency, benchmarking and feedback. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2829

Almala, A. H. (2006). Applying the principles of constructivism to a quality e-learning environment. Distance Learning, 3(1), 33.

Anderson, T. (2008). The theory and practice of online learning: Athabasca University Press.Applefield, J. M., Huber, R., & Moallem, M. (2000). Constructivism in theory and practice: Toward a better

understanding. The High School Journal, 84(2), 35-53. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39-

43. Biasutti, M., & EL-Deghaidy, H. (2015). Interdisciplinary project-based learning: an online wiki experience in

teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 339-355. Bilgin, I., Karakuyu, Y., & Ay, Y. (2015). The Effects of Project Based Learning on Undergraduate Students’

Achievement and Self-Efficacy Beliefs Towards Science Teaching. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(3), 469-477.

Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2009). What type of collaboration helps? Psychological ownership, perceived learning and outcome quality of collaboration using Google Docs. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Chais conference on instructional technologies research.

Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118-126.

Boss, S., & Krauss, J. (2014). Reinventing project-based learning: Your field guide to real-world projects in the digital age: International Society for Technology in Education.

Bower, M., Woo, K., Roberts, M., & Watters, P. (2006). Wiki pedagogy--a tale of two wikis. Paper presented at the 2006 7th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training.

Bradlow, E. T., Hoch, S. J., & Hutchinson, J. W. (2002). An assessment of basic computer proficiency among active internet users: Test construction, calibration, antecedents and consequences. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(3), 237-253.

Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning (Vol. 3): Harvard University Press.Buck, T. L. (2004). An investigation of field dependence-independence and cognitive abilities in a non-linear

distance learning environment. (Doctoral dissertation), Walden University. Cavanaugh, C. (2004). Project-based learning in undergraduate educational technology. Paper presented at the

Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.


Choy, S. O., & Ng, K. C. (2007). Implementing Wiki Software for Supplementing Online Learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 209-226.

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement: Springer Science & Business Media.

Chu. (2008). TWiki for knowledge building and management. Online Information Review, 32(6), 745-758. Chu, Lee, T., & King, R. B. (2012). Writing with others in wiki: An investigation of student collaborative

writing in English among Chinese secondary students. Paper presented at the DGI-Conference 2012.Chu, Siu, F., Liang, M., Capio, C. M., & Wu, W. W. (2013). Users' experiences and perceptions on using two

wiki platforms for collaborative learning and knowledge management. Online Information Review, 37(2), 304-325.

Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141-146. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.003

Coyle Jr, J. E. (2007). Wikis in the College Classroon: A Comparative Study of Online and Face-to-Face Group Collaboration at a Private Liberal Arts University. Kent State University.

Cunningham, D., & Duffy, T. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 170-198.

Davidson, R. (2012). Wiki use that increases communication and collarboration motivation. Journal of Learning Design, 5(2), 38-49.

De Wever, B., Hämäläinen, R., Voet, M., & Gielen, M. (2015). A wiki task for first-year university students: The effect of scripting students' collaboration. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 37-44. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.12.002

Dencheva, S., Prause, C. R., & Zimmermann, A. (2009). Collaborative moderation-fostering creativity with a corporate wiki. Paper presented at the Workshop on Methods & Tools for Computer Supported Collaborative Creativity Process: Linking creativity & informal learning.

Dettmer, P., Knackendoffel, A., & Thurston, L. P. (2012). Collaboration, consultation, and teamwork for students with special needs: Pearson Higher Ed.

Dickey, M. D. (2005). Engaging by design: How engagement strategies in popular computer and video games can inform instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 67-83.

Ebner, M., Kickmeier-Rust, M., & Holzinger, A. (2008). Utilizing wiki-systems in higher education classes: A chance for universal access? Universal Access in the Information Society, 7(4), 199-207.

Elgort, I. (2007). Using wikis as a learning tool in higher education. ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore, 233-238.

Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., Yu, J. H., Liu, W., Tomory, A., Lee, Y. M., . . . Sendurur, P. (2011). Facilitating students' global perspectives: Collaborating with international partners using Web 2.0 technologies. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 251-261.

Fellows, R., & Liu, A. (1997). Research Methods for Construction: Blackwell Science. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Gallese, V., Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., & Fogassi, L. (1999). Perception through action. Psyche, 5(21), 1. Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on

learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18-26. Guion, L., Diehl, D., & McDonald, D. (2011). Triangulation: Establishing the validity of qualitative studies.

Gainsville, FL: University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.Hamid, & Mansor, W. F. A. W. (2012). Discovering the Potential of Wiki through Collaborative Story Writing.

Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 337-342. Hamid, Waycott, J., Kurnia, S., & Chang, S. (2015). Understanding students' perceptions of the benefits of

online social networking use for teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 1-9. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.004

Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Learning Activity Types: Curriculum-based Technology Integration Reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education), 41(4), 393-416.

Hazari, S., North, A., & Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating pedagogical value of wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187.

Hecht, H., Vogt, S., & Prinz, W. (2001). Motor learning enhances perceptual judgment: A case for action-perception transfer. Psychological research, 65(1), 3-14.

Hmelo-Silver, C., Chernobilsky, E., & Nagarajan, A. (2009). Two sides of the coin: Multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction in online problem-based learning. Investigating classroom interaction: Methodologies in action. Boston: Sense Publishers.

Howard, J. (2002). Technology-enhanced project-based learning in teacher education: Addressing the goals of transfer. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 343-364.

Hung, Hwang, G., & Huang, I. (2012). A Project-based Digital Storytelling Approach for Improving Students'


Learning Motivation, Problem-Solving Competence and Learning Achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 368-379.

Hung, H.-T., & Yuen, S. C.-Y. (2010). Educational use of social networking technology in higher education. Teaching in higher education, 15(6), 703-714.

Ioannou, A., Brown, S. W., & Artino, A. R. (2015). Wikis and forums for collaborative problem-based activity: A systematic comparison of learners' interactions. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 35-45. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.09.001

Iverson, J. O., & McPhee, R. D. (2002). Knowledge management in communities of practice. Management Communication Quarterly: McQ, 16(2), 259.

Jaeger, U. (2015). Reflection using a Wiki for First Semester Programming Skills. Global Research Community: Collaboration and Developments, 223.

Judd, T., Kennedy, G., & Cropper, S. (2010). Using wikis for collaborative learning: Assessing collaboration through contribution. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 341-354.

Karasavvidis, I. (2010). Wiki uses in higher education: Exploring barriers to successful implementation. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), 219-231.

Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Teaching and Learning. Educational technology, 38(5), 20-23.

Khine, M. S., & Saleh, I. M. (2010). New science of learning: Cognition, Computers and Collaboration in Education: Springer Science & Business Media.

Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method: The use of the purposeful act in the educative process: Teachers college, Columbia university.

Koh, J. H. L., Herring, S. C., & Hew, K. F. (2010). Project-based learning and student knowledge construction during asynchronous online discussion. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 284-291. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.003

Konja, M., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2008). Collaborative learning processes in Wiki-based environments in higher education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the third annual Chais conference on instructional technologies research.

Lai, Y. C., & Ng, E. M. (2011). Using wikis to develop student teachers' learning, teaching, and assessment capabilities. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 15-26.

Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of progress portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 65-84.

Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The Wiki way: quick collaboration on the Web. Boston: Addison-Wesely.Liou, H.-C., & Lee, S.-L. (2011). How wiki-based writing influences college students’ collaborative and

individual composing products, processes, and learners’ perceptions. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 1(1), 45-61.

Lipson, A., Epstein, A. W., Bras, R., & Hodges, K. (2007). Students’ perceptions of Terrascope, a project-based freshman learning community. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(4), 349-364.

Liu, C. H., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky's Philosophy: Constructivism and Its Criticisms Examined. International Education Journal, 6(3), 386-399.

Love, P. E., Holt, G. D., & Li, H. (2002). Triangulation in construction management research. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 9(4), 294-303.

Malinen, S. (2015). Understanding user participation in online communities: A systematic literature review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 228-238.

Mao, J. (2014). Social media for learning: A mixed methods study on high school students’ technology affordances and perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 213-223.

Marshall, S. (2007). Engagement Theory, WebCT, and academic writing in Australia. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 3(2).

Mason, R. B. (2011). Student Engagement with, and Participation in, an e-Forum. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 258-268.

Matthew, K., & Callaway, R. (2008). Wiki as a collaborative learning tool. Paper presented at the EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology.

Meishar‐Tal, H., & Gorsky, P. (2010). Wikis: What students do and do not do when writing collaboratively. Open Learning, 25(1), 25-35.

Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2011). Teaching, Learning, and Sharing: How Today's Higher Education Faculty Use Social Media. Babson Survey Research Group.

Nami, F., & Marandi, S. S. (2014). Wikis as discussion forums: exploring students’ contribution and their attention to form. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(6), 483-508.

Olesen, H. S., & Jensen, J. H. (1999). Project studies: a late modern university reform? : Roskilde University Press.


Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. Developments in sociology, 20, 103-118.

Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Feldman, K. A. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2): Jossey-Bass San Francisco, CA.

Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century: National Academies Press.

Popescu, E. (2014). Using wikis to support project-based learning: A case study. Paper presented at the 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

Rasmussen, A., Lewis, M., & White, J. (2013). The application of wiki technology in medical education. Medical teacher, 35(2), 109-114.

Roussinos, D., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2013). Blended collaborative learning through a wiki-based project: A case study on students’ perceptions. Fostering 21st Century Digital Literacy and Technical Competency, 130.

Salaber, J. (2014). Facilitating student engagement and collaboration in a large postgraduate course using wiki-based activities. The International Journal of Management Education, 12(2), 115-126.

Sanden, S., & Darragh, J. (2011). Wiki use in the 21st-century literacy classroom: A framework for evaluation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal), 11(1), 6-20.

Schaffert, S., Bischof, D., Bürger, T., Gruber, A., Hilzensauer, W., & Schaffert, S. (2006). Learning with Semantic Wikis. Paper presented at the SemWiki.

Schneckenberg, D., Ehlers, U., & Adelsberger, H. (2011). Web 2.0 and competence‐oriented design of learning—Potentials and implications for higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 747-762.

Shih, W.-C., Tseng, S.-S., & Yang, C.-T. (2008). Wiki-based rapid prototyping for teaching-material design in e-Learning grids. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1037-1057.

Slater, J. J., & Ravid, R. (2010). Collaboration in education: Routledge.Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement:

Classroom‐based practices. Journal of engineering education, 94(1), 87-101. Strickland, J., & Xie, Y. (2012). Cooperating or collaborating: Design considerations of employing wikis to

engage college-level students. Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, 6, 17-45. Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing

computer-supported group-based learning. Computers & Education, 42(4), 403-424. Sun, L., & Deng, L. (2007). Online community of practice for in-service faculty development of technological

pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). TECHNOLOGY AND TEACHER EDUCATION ANNUAL, 18(4), 2267.

Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond threaded discussion: Representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1103-1127.

Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual)–A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), A60-A68.

Thomas, J. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Report prepared for The Autodesk Foundation: San Rafael CA.

Vartiainen, H., Liljeström, A., & Enkenberg, J. (2012). Design-Oriented Pedagogy for Technology-Enhanced Learning to Cross Over the Borders between Formal and Informal Environments. J. UCS, 18(15), 2097-2119.

Veerman, A., & Veldhuis-Diermanse, E. (2001). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated communication in academic education. Paper presented at the Euro CSCL.

Von Kotze, A., & Cooper, L. (2000). Exploring the transformative potential of project-based learning in university adult education. Studies in the Education of Adults, 32(2), 212-228.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and Society. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.Vygotsky, L. S., Hanfmann, E., & Vakar, G. (2012). Thought and language: MIT press.Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Engaged and disaffected action: The conceptualization and measurement of motivation

in the academic domain. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Rochester, New York. Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student‐generated

content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987-995. Wichmann, A., & Rummel, N. (2013). Improving revision in wiki-based writing: Coordination pays off.

Computers & Education, 62, 262-270. Yang, H.-L., & Cheng, H.-H. (2010). Creativity of student information system projects: From the perspective of

network embeddedness. Computers & Education, 54(1), 209-221. Zheng, B., Niiya, M., & Warschauer, M. (2015). Wikis and collaborative learning in higher education.

Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 24(3), 357-374.


3.1 Participants and - University of Hong Kongweb.hku.hk/~samchu/docs/Chu (in press) The...

Documents

Transcript of 3.1 Participants and - University of Hong Kongweb.hku.hk/~samchu/docs/Chu (in press) The...