Conference paper proposal - Faculty of...

This is a draft version for “Chu, S. (2008). TWiki for knowledge building and management. Online Information Review, 32(6): 745-758.”

Title: TWiki for knowledge building and management

Author: Samuel Kai-Wah ChuDivision of Information and Technology Studies, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong

Abstract

Purpose – This paper reports on a study examining the effectiveness of TWiki, an open-source online collaborative groupware, in facilitating students’ co-construction of knowledge in their group work. The paper focuses on the groupware’s impact on knowledge management, in terms of knowledge creation, capturing, sharing, and transferring. It also discusses some of the obstacles faced by students in using the software and how these can be addressed.Methodology – In this study, TWiki was used in structuring the knowledge building environment for group projects in an undergraduate course on Knowledge Management. Students created a chapter for a wikibook. Wiki templates were designed for the course to help with the organization of contents inside TWiki. A questionnaire and individual interviews were used to collect student opinion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of using the wiki software for their projects. Findings – Overall, students were generally positive regarding the effectiveness of TWiki in facilitating their group projects. In particular, TWiki was seen to improve group collaboration as well as work quality, and it was also seen as a useful tool for knowledge management in terms of knowledge creation, capturing, sharing and transferring. Research implications – With its ability to improve student collaboration as well as their quality of work, TWiki can clearly be a suitable tool for collaborative constructive learning, such as group projects. However, the study also showed that students and teachers should be adequately trained to use the tool in order to maximize its benefits. Some features of TWiki have to be improved and technical difficulties are to be fixed for easy use. Further studies can focus on using TWiki in different subjects and in classes of different sizes.Value – There were several important outcomes of the study: first, the comparison between students’ perceptions of TWiki and MS Word in terms of usability and effectiveness; second, the findings with regard to improvement of work quality in small group size, which are unique; and third, TWiki was found to be an effective knowledge management tool. Keywords TWiki, Knowledge building, Knowledge management, Wiki, Collaborative workPaper type Research paper

IntroductionWiki is a Hawaiian word meaning quick (Lamb, 2004), and wiki software is so named because it combines reading and writing within a web browser, allowing for easy editing of text, as well as easy creation and linkage of web pages. For this reason, wikis are commonly used as knowledge management tools to facilitate the creation, sharing, discussion and revision of knowledge artifacts in group projects (Da Lio et al. 2005). Wiki software has also been applied in various ways in education, including as support for writing individual and group projects, course management and distance education (Bold, 2006; Parker & Chao, 2007). Some teachers have even used wikis as tools to co-create teaching materials (Da Lio et al., 2005). Of the various wiki software, TWiki is considered as the flagship by some researchers (Ebersbach et al. 2006), and it serves well as a project development space, a document management system and a knowledge base for intranets or the Internet (TWiki, 2007).

This paper explores the effectiveness of using TWiki to facilitate student group work. Questionnaires and interviews were used to analyze student views and experiences of using TWiki.

/tt/file_convert/5a80afa07f8b9a0c748c90f9/document.doc 05/05/2023 1

Literature reviewConstructivism has been regarded as a leading theory in learning since the 1980s and 1990s, overtaking behaviorist and information-processing perspectives (cited in Liu and Matthews, 2005). It describes learning as “learners learn by experimentation, and not by being told what will happen. They are left to make their own inferences, discoveries and conclusions. It also emphasizes that learning is not an ‘all or nothing’ process, but that students learn the new information that is presented to them by building upon the knowledge they already possess (schoolnet.com, 2008). Perhaps due to this learning theory, curriculums worldwide (at tertiary, secondary, and primary levels) seems to be changing from exam-based learning to project based learning in the past two decades. Under this new approach of learning, students have the freedom of selecting their research topics, finding relevant sources for their enquiries, and coming up with new knowledge as the result of their projects. As web-based tools that can be used to facilitate collaborative writing and learning, recent years have seen an increasing use of wikis in education. This includes support for writing individual and group projects, course management and distance education (Bold, 2006; Parker & Chao, 2007). Moreover, some teachers have used wikis software as a tool for creating teaching materials collaboratively (Da Lio et al., 2005).

Past research on the use of wiki software in education has focused on four main areas: the rationale for using wikis (Engstrom & Jewett, 2005; Lamb, 2004; Raman et al. 2005); collaborative learning and writing using wikis (Bold, 2006; De Pedro et al. 2006a; De Pedro et al. 2006b; Engstrom & Jewett, 2005; Guzdial et al. 2001; Raman et al., 2005; Nicol et al. 2005); knowledge building and management using wikis (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005; Da Lio et al., 2005; Raman et al. 2005); and sharing and structuring of information using wikis (Aumueller, 2005; Bruns & Humphreys, 2005; Da Lio et al., 2005; Nicol et al., 2005).

Key factors in the rationale behind the use of wikis in education, as described by Engstrom and Jewett (2005), Lamb (2004) and Raman et al. (2005), consist of the following:

Wiki is an open-source technology which is easy to install and learn. It can serve as a platform for users to put their work together, as an online sketchpad, or a shared workspace for brainstorming.

Users are able to update information in wiki pages easily with minimal knowledge of HTML. The updated pages can be shown immediately and automatically.

Wiki pages are organized by content, and students are able to decide how to structure the information.

It is easy to go back to earlier versions if problems occur because most wikis allow users to trace the project progress.

Some wikis permit limited access through registration, which can ensure privacy of members’ work. On the other hand, if no restriction is put on the access right, the readership and/or the authorship of a wiki can be extended far beyond the organizational boundary to many other communities around the world.

Researchers have frequently reported positive experiences of using wikis to facilitate collaborative learning and knowledge building (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005; Bold, 2006; Nicol et al., 2005). Scardamalia & Bereiter (2003) sees knowledge building as a constructive process which calls for deep constructivism where people “identify problems of understanding, establishing and refining goals based on progress, gathering information, theorizing, designing experiments, answering questions and improving theories, building models, monitoring and evaluating progress” (p. 1371). The writing of a group assignment on wiki is an example of knowledge building. Bold (2006) employed wiki technology to support the completion of assignments and course management among students of an online Master’s degree programme. Not only did the students report greater convenience and better connection with the use of the wiki, but they also showed an improvement in their online technology skills. In De Pedro et al.’s (2006b) study on using wikis as a platform for university students to do group projects, it was found


that the wiki methodology saved time in areas such as the final mark up of the work, avoidance of writing similar content and group meetings.

Despite the apparent benefits of using wikis in collaborative learning and knowledge management, certain challenges in implementing the technology have been indicated by some researchers. Training for teachers and students in wiki technology, for instance, has been found essential in order for them to fully utilize the software (Raman et al., 2005; Da Lio et al., 2005). Bold (2006) and Engstrom and Jewett (2005) observed a lack of interaction (such as exchange of ideas, questions and feedback) among students of the same and different groups. Social obstacles, such as the frustration of having one’s materials modified, have also been reported (Da Lio et al., 2005). To address these issues, teachers are advised to contribute and respond to students’ wiki entries, and to encourage critical thinking and multiple perspectives (Engstrom & Jewett, 2005). Additionally, specially designed grading policies, such as those giving points for posting comments, may also motivate students to collaborate more effectively in wikis (Raman et al. 2005).

While past research is clear on the advantages of using wikis in group work, there has been limited discussion on whether wikis contribute to a higher quality of collaborative work, and on addressing the social obstacles constraining student interactions in wikis as suggested by Da Lio et al. (2005). By specifically examining the effectiveness of TWiki in facilitating students’ knowledge building in working on their group projects, this paper attempts to enhance such discussion. It also focuses on how well TWiki serves as a knowledge management tool, particularly on creating, capturing, sharing and transferring knowledge. Knowledge management consists of any process of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and using knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance learning and performance in organizations (cited in Jashapara, 2004).

Research methodsIn this study, TWiki was used to support knowledge building for students from an undergraduate course on Knowledge Management (KM). In the KM course, students were required to create a chapter (a case study) for a wikibook1. Wiki templates were designed specifically for the course by the instructor, which could be modified by students according to their needs.

1 Wikibooks – online books created by the wiki technology. For details, see http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page.


The wiki workspace for the KM course consisted of three parts, namely “group progress”, “group discussion”, and “group report”. “Group progress” was a page for students to write their draft reports, whereas the “group report” page was for the finalized reports. Students were free to discuss any issues relating to their projects on the “group discussion” page. The templates for “group progress” and “group report” were initially identical; students could modify them in accordance with the design of their group report. See Figure 1 for an example of the “group progress” and “group discussion” online template.

Figure 1. TWiki template for “group progress” and “group discussion”

The effectiveness of TWiki in facilitating student group projects was examined by surveying students with a questionnaire and interview. Forty-one undergraduates (22 Year two and 19 Year three) studying Knowledge Management responded to the questionnaires. As only a small proportion of students were male (7 out of 41 students), gender effect was not examined in the study. In the questionnaire, six questions used a 5-point Likert scale, and a few were open-ended questions 2. Additionally, 19 frequent users of TWiki were interviewed regarding their views on the effectiveness of TWiki as an enabling technology for knowledge management.

The data from these questionnaires was analyzed using SPSS (Windows version 14.0). For each survey question that required ratings, the one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and a histogram were used to test the normality of students’ ratings. Since the results showed that the normality of data was questionable (p < 0.05 in the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and skewed histograms), non-parametric tests were used. Ratings in the survey questions were compared between second and third year students using the Mann-Whitney test. Possible correlations were explored among the key items examined (e.g., between the improved quality of work and the improved level of collaboration). A 5% level of significance was used in all statistical tests in the study. For the open-ended questions, comments with similar meaning were grouped together and analyzed using NVivo version 7.0.

Findings and DiscussionOverall, the results from the questionnaires and interviews were generally positive regarding the effectiveness of TWiki in facilitating student group projects, and as a tool for knowledge management in terms of knowledge creation, capturing, sharing and transferring.

This section will first give an overview of the positive and negative comments given to both TWiki and the traditional method of doing a group project. This will be followed by a more detailed evaluation on the effectiveness of TWiki in supporting collaboration among students based on their ratings in the questionnaire. A comparison was also made between the ratings of the more frequent and the less frequent users of TWiki. Then, the effectiveness of TWiki as a knowledge management tool based on the

2 Some of the questions asked for comments on wiki technology in general, as students used both TWiki and Wikibook in the KM course; students first completed a draft chapter in TWiki, and then copied it onto Wikibook.


data from the interviews will be examined. The workspace design in TWiki for doing group projects will be subsequently discussed, followed by a discussion of the social obstacles involved in the use of TWiki as well as room for improvement of the technology.


Comparison between TWiki and the traditional method of working on a group projectIn the questionnaires, there were positive and negative comments for both TWiki and the traditional way of doing projects using Microsoft (MS) Word (see Table 1). Although De Pedro et al. (2006a) also listed some advantages and disadvantages of using wikis from a teacher’s perspective of reviewing students’ work, the comments in this study are from a student perspective of using the technology to facilitate their group project.

Most students reported that TWiki was able to facilitate collaboration in group projects. Students noted that it helped in keeping track of others’ work progress, giving comments to each other, sharing knowledge, and made it possible to work at any time, from any place. These characteristics are not available when doing a group project using MS Word. However, it was also noted that the interface of TWiki was less user-friendly than MS Word, and it took time to get used to the platform in TWiki.

Table 1. Positive and negative comments given by students to TWiki and MS WordPositive Comments (No. of Students):TWiki: Facilitates collaboration of group work (20) Able to keep track of others' working progress (7) Facilitates knowledge sharing (7) Able to receive comments from others (6) Able to work anytime anywhere (4) Saves the time to send emails and files to other

group members (3) Facilitates communication within group (2) Able to keep track of different versions (2) Allows consistent formatting (1) A new way of creating report (1) User-friendly (1)

Traditional way using MS Word: Easy formatting (8) More advanced functions (5) User-friendly interface (4) Higher familiarity (3) No networking problem (2)

Negative Comments (No. of Students):TWiki: Difficulty in formatting (5) Time consuming to learn to use the editing tools (4) Technical problems, e.g. server problem (3) Difficult to identify each member's contribution (1) Available functions are primitive (1)

Traditional way using MS Word Only allows individual work (7) Troublesome when sending emails (5) Cannot track others' work progress (2) Difficult to share with other people (3) Time consuming to combine members' work (2) Duplication of editing (1) Inconsistency in writing format (1)


Effectiveness of using TWiki to support student group projectsIn the questionnaire, students were asked to give ratings on a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate the effectiveness of TWiki in facilitating their group projects. Overall, students found TWiki quite effective in supporting their group projects. The KM course accepted both second and third year undergraduate students, and the two groups of students gave similar ratings for the survey questions, except for improved quality of work using the wiki software and the ease of using TWiki. Table 2 lists the mean and median scores, as well as the 95% confidence interval of students’ ratings. Table 2. Student responses on the use of TWiki

Survey Questions

Second year students:Mean; Median (95% CI a)(N1 = 22)

Third year students:Mean; Median (95% CI a)(N2 = 19)

Overall(N = 41)Mean; Median (95% CIa)

Results from Mann-Whitney test:p-value#

1. Improvement in collaboration through the use of wiki b

3.5; 4.0 (3.1-3.8) 3.2; 3.0 (2.8-3.5) 3.3; 3.0 (3.1-3.6) 0.231

2. Improvement in quality of the group work through the use of wiki b

3.4; 3.5 (3.1-3.8) 2.8; 3.0 (2.5-3.2) 3.2; 3.0 (2.9-3.4) 0.029*

3. Helpfulness of comments from the instructors and other students b

3.4; 3.0 (3.1-3.7) 3.4; 3.8 (3.1-3.7) 3.4; 3.4 (3.2-3.6) 0.929

4. Ease of using TWiki c 3.0; 3.0 (2.7-3.3) 3.5; 4.0 (3.1-3.8) 3.2; 3.0 (3.0-3.5) 0.043*5. Enjoyment in using TWiki b 3.3; 3.0 (2.9-3.7) 3.1; 3.0 (2.7-3.4) 3.2; 3.0 (2.9-3.5) 0.3746. TWiki as a suitable tool b 3.7; 4.0 (3.3-4.1) 3.3; 3.0 (2.8-3.7) 3.5; 4.0 (3.2-3.8) 0.091Notes:a CI stands for confidence interval calculated from the given sample set. It is an estimated range of plausible values of the true

value, or the true mean of the population. A 95% CI means that there is a 95% probability that one will find the true value in the estimated range. The width of the CI indicates the reliability of the estimation. A narrower CI indicates more reliable result than a wider CI (Dalgaard, 2002).

b The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”.c The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “very difficult” and 5 as “very easy”.# Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the scores given by second and third year students from the KM course.* A significant different is found between second and third year of students as shown by the Mann-Whitney test at 5%

significant level.

Improved collaborationStudents highly rated (mean score of 3.3, with 5 as “very much so”) the use of wiki in improving their collaboration. This is consistent with Nicol et al.’s (2005) findings, in which participants positively valued the shared online workspace in terms of supportive teamwork and sharing resources. From students’ written comments, it appears that students found TWiki useful in improving collaboration because it allowed different members to work on different parts of the report at the same time, and ensured that one member’s work could not overwrite another member’s work. Other comments noted that TWiki allowed all group members to check the progress of the project, see the modifications made by other members, and contribute their ideas online in response to the work done by their fellow group-mates.

Improved quality of group reports There is no discussion in the current literature on the role of wikis in producing higher quality collaborative work. In De Pedro`s (2006b) comparison between the traditional method (e.g. creating individual documents in computers not connected among themselves) and the wiki method of doing group assignments, it was found that large groups (more than 15 students) obtained higher marks using the wiki--while devoting less time to their projects--than through the traditional way. This difference was not found in smaller student groups.


In this study, however, even though the students were in small groups (5-6 students), contrary to De Pedro`s (2006b) results, most of them gave high ratings (mean score of 3.1, with 5 as “very much so”) for the improvement in work quality through TWiki. Second year students gave significantly higher ratings for the use of wiki technology in improving the quality of their work than did third year students, as shown by the Mann-Whitney test (p = 0.029, with significant level = 0.05). Despite the generally positive ratings for improved quality with the use of wikis, one third year student noted that although TWiki may encourage students to contribute to the projects more, it may not be able to improve their quality of work. A significant moderate correlation was found however, between the improved quality of work and the improved level of collaboration (r = 0.448, p = 0.002). Moreover, improved collaboration among students increased with their improved quality of work.

Comments given by instructors and students in wiki on how to improve the quality of work To encourage knowledge sharing between students, each group was asked to make or suggest changes regarding another group’s work with TWiki, over a period of about two weeks. The instructor also read and commented on students’ work at various stages. Students found comments from both their instructor and classmates useful (mean score of 3.3, with 5 as “very much so”), although instructor comments were considered more valuable. According to students, instructors had professional knowledge and could thus offer effective and functional comments, whereas other group members may possess neither adequate knowledge nor incentive to provide comments. The results imply that TWiki can serve as a platform for knowledge sharing; this will be further discussed subsequently.

Ease of using TWikiConsistent with the findings of Da Lio et al. (2005), content creation and attachment management were perceived by the students in this study as relatively difficult. There was a significant difference between the ratings of second and third year students according to the Mann-Whitney test (p = 0.043): third year students generally found TWiki easier to use than did second year students (Table 2). However, although second year students found TWiki more difficult to use than did their senior counterparts, it is interesting to see that they enjoyed TWiki as much as the third year students. It was also found that students encountered many problems with the technology, especially in formatting.

Enjoyment in using TWiki Second and third year students equally enjoyed using TWiki in doing their group projects. Significant correlations were found between the level of enjoyment in using TWiki and three other variables: (1) improved collaboration (r = 0.611, p <0.001); (2) improved quality of work (r = 0.513, p <0.001); and (3) the ease of using TWiki (r = 0.447, p = 0.001). In other words, students tended to enjoy using TWiki more when they found it able to improve the level of collaboration among group members, their quality of work, and when they found TWiki easy to use.

TWiki as a suitable tool for doing group projectsStudents gave high scores to the suitability of TWiki as a tool for doing their group projects. About 76% of the students supported the continued use of TWiki for group projects in the same course. Some students mentioned that wikis could serve as a platform for knowledge sharing, in which the course instructor could follow students’ progress, and students could receive feedback from the instructor. Several students were of the opinion that the use of TWiki should depend on the nature of the group projects. About half of the students intended to continue to use wikis, whether professionally or personally, especially for tasks requiring collaboration and knowledge sharing.


Comparison between frequent and less frequent users of TWikiFor data analysis purposes, students were grouped according to the number of revisions they made in TWiki. Students who made more than 11 revisions were put into group 1 (more frequent users), and students who made fewer than 10 revisions were put into group 2 (less frequent users). Table 3 illustrates the ratings of these two groups in the questionnaire.

Table 3. Comparison of students’ responses on the use of TWiki as grouped by the number of revisions they made

Survey Questions

Group 1:More Frequent UsersMean; Median (95% CI)(N1 = 19)

Group 2:Less Frequent UsersMean; Median (95% CI)(N2 = 19)

Results from Mann-Whitney test:p-value

1. Improved collaboration using wiki a 3.3; 3.0 (3.0-3.6) 3.4; 4.0 (2.9-3.8) 0.752^2. Improved quality using wiki a 3.1; 3.0 (2.7-3.4) 3.3; 3.0 (2.9-3.7) 0.345^3. Ease of using TWiki b 3.2; 3.0 (2.8-3.5) 3.3; 3.0 (2.9-3.6) 0.671^4. Enjoyment in using TWiki a 3.1; 3.0 (2.7-3.4) 3.4; 3.0 (2.9-3.8) 0.306^5. TWiki as a suitable tool a 3.4; 3.0 (3.0-3.8) 3.7; 4.0 (3.3-4.0) 0.168^Notes:a The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”.b The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “very difficult” and 5 as “very easy”.^ Ratings from Group 1 and 2 were not significantly different as shown by the Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level.Item 3 in Table 2 “Helpfulness of comments from the instructors and other students” is not included in Table 3 because the

purpose of this table is to compare more frequent and less frequent users’ view on wiki.Three students who made 10 to 11 revisions were not included in the above analysis.

The more frequent TWiki users consistently gave a lower rating in the survey questions, even though the difference was not significant as shown by the Mann-Whitney test. This seems to suggest that when students had limited experience with TWiki, they believed it was a useful tool for online collaborative projects. However, when students had more experience with TWiki, they rated it less favorably in all five aspects listed in Table 3. Perhaps when students became more familiar with TWiki, they found it a less useful tool than their original impression.


TWiki as a knowledge management toolThe more frequent users of TWiki (19 students) were interviewed regarding its use as a knowledge management tool. Four aspects of knowledge management were examined: (1) knowledge creation--a process that results in new knowledge; (2) knowledge capturing—finding ways to make tacit knowledge explicit (e.g., documenting good practices or building expert directories to foster knowledge sharing); (3) knowledge sharing--a process of exchange of knowledge; and (4) knowledge transferring--a process of getting a packet of knowledge from one organization to another (Hari, Egbu, & Kumar, 2005; Smith, 2000; Stuhlman, 2006). The average ratings for all four aspects were higher than 3 (with 5 as “very much so”; Figure 2). Among the four aspects, students gave the highest ratings to TWiki as a knowledge sharing tool.

Figure 2. Students’ rating on knowledge creation, capturing, sharing and transferring

Ratings on TWiki as a Knowledge Management Tool

3.83 4.173.5 3.56

1

2

3

4

5

KnowledgeCreation

KnowledgeSharing

KnowledgeCapturing

KnowledgeTransfer

Aspects of Knowledge Management

Mea

n Sc

ore

Note: The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”. The error bars indicate +/- one standard deviation.

Knowledge creationMost students thought TWiki could facilitate knowledge creation. “In the knowledge creation process, TWiki helps turn implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge, so everyone else can see and know about it. At the same time, other group members can add their ideas into the piece of knowledge,” said one student.

Knowledge sharingStudents’ comments showed that TWiki served well as a platform for knowledge sharing. Students mentioned that they could read the work of their own group and even other groups so as to offer comments. They could also share their resources while doing the project, for instance in the “group discussion” page. Some students liked TWiki’s possibility of limited access through registration, so that they could keep their drafts private, although their finalized work was made available for public access.

Knowledge captureTWiki was regarded as a good tool for knowledge capturing by a number of interviewed students, who expressed the view that knowledge could be systematically captured in TWiki because not only the final version, but all previous versions of their report were recorded in the system. All of the interviewed students indicated that recording all modifications made in TWiki was a desirable feature. Most of them claimed that they did not mind other people reading what they had revised. By keeping all the revisions, students could retrieve the old files when they made mistakes in editing their reports.

Knowledge transferWhile one student said that there was no special function for knowledge transferring in TWiki, other students believed that TWiki was able to serve this function. They commented that TWiki could facilitate


the transfer of knowledge as it promptly shows the latest information to those who are interested through the Internet.

Workspace design in TWikiIn TWiki, a workspace consisting of three sections was designed to organize content and to guide students. The three sections all served different functions: the “group progress” page was designed for students to write their draft reports, the “group report” page was for the finalized reports, and the “group discussion” page was for discussion on any issues related to their group projects. The more frequent TWiki users (19 students) were interviewed about the usefulness of this design, half of whom said that the three sections served different functions and were useful for doing their group projects. The other half of the interviewed students were confused, however, about the purposes of the “group progress” and the “group report” sections, since both pages served as areas for writing their group reports. It is therefore important to give clear instructions regarding the purpose of different sections of TWiki. At the same time, it may be better to merge the “group progress” and the “group report” pages.

Regarding the “group discussion” page, most interviewed students regarded it as a good medium for sharing ideas among themselves, as they no longer need to email each other. Nevertheless, they suggested that improvement be made to the “group discussion” in TWiki by automatically including the name of the writer of the postings and the posting date in the writing of new messages or replies. One student commented that he did not use the “group discussion” in TWiki because of the unfamiliarity with the technology. It implies the need of training in the use of Twiki as well as encouragement of student interaction.

Social obstacles in editing or commenting on others’ work in TWikiDa Lio et al. (2005) claimed that students may face social obstacles in commenting on, or editing, others’ work in wiki. In response to these claims, the frequent TWiki users (19 students) in this study were asked in the interviews about their feelings on editing the work of their group members or other groups. Interestingly, comments from the interviews revealed that students did not feel uncomfortable in editing their group members’ work (77.8%), but felt uncomfortable in editing or commenting on the work of other groups (66.7%).

Specifically, one student mentioned that as the group members were working together on the same project, it was necessary to point out problems in one another’s work. Some students suggested that good communication was necessary among group members to ease or eliminate any discomfort in revising others’ work. Additionally, it was recommended that notifications or clearer indications regarding what changes have been made and by whom be added.

On the other hand, students generally felt uncomfortable about editing the work of other groups, pointing out that they were unfamiliar about the topic or the situation of other groups. More guidelines on how to edit or comment on others’ work could be given.

Room for improvement in TWikiDespite the many advantages of using TWiki to facilitate collaboration in group project work, various problems were encountered by students when using the tool, as indicated by their written comments in the questionnaire.

Students generally thought that the ease of formatting in a wiki groupware is important to them. In our study, around half of them found it difficult to format their documents in TWiki, and another five students felt the interface was not user-friendly. There are two ways of formatting documents in TWiki. One way is to use codes specifically designed to be used in TWiki (TWiki editing shorthand), and the other way is to use the What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get (WYSIWYG) editor in TWiki. The WYSIWYG editor is very similar to the tool bars in MS Word. Most students found it difficult and troublesome to learn the TWiki editing shorthand, finding it much easier to use the WYSIWYG editor.


The large number of complaints about the formatting of TWiki could be largely due to students’ unfamiliarity with the WYSIWYG editor. It points to the importance of providing training for students, even in simple tasks such as formatting. Furthermore, developers of TWiki and other similar wiki platforms should consider designing more user-friendly formatting tools.

Another major concern of the students was that they could not edit their reports concurrently. This problem was tested by the investigator, and contrary to student claims, it was found that TWiki does allow simultaneous editing in the same document, and the changes made can be merged by the system. This again demonstrated the need for student training in using TWiki effectively. Apart from the two major complaints regarding formatting and concurrent editing, some students felt the online introduction and online help of TWiki were not clear enough. There were some other minor technological problems reported by the students; at least two students for instance, encountered server errors when they were editing or saving some changes made on a page.

Conclusion and implicationsThis is a small-scale case study on the use of TWiki to support students from an undergraduate course in doing their group projects. Student responses to the questionnaire indicated their positive ratings on the use of TWiki, which correlate with the existing literature. TWiki was found in the study effective to improve student collaboration, as well as their quality of work; most students in this study were of the opinion that it is a suitable tool for working on collaborative projects online. TWiki was also considered an enabling technology for knowledge management. The results of the study have implications in the following areas: students’ group projects, teachers as the facilitators, training on TWiki, and design of wiki.

For group projects, teachers/lecturers always have the concern that whether all members of a group shared the workload fairly among themselves or whether one or two members did most of the work. Since TWiki keeps track of each member’s work, it helps the teacher as well as the members of each group to assess each member’s contribution to the group work in a more objective and transparent manner. TWiki (and wikis in general) has the potential to enhance the quality of students’ group project works, therefore teachers who assign group works for their students could examine such a tool (or similar tools) to see if this technology will also enhance their students’ learning experience.

Furthermore, TWiki enhances the teacher’s role as a facilitator of students’ group project work. First, teachers can design the online work environment (e.g., the template for students’ group project work, and key online resources/user guides for students working on TWiki) for their students. Second, teachers can monitor students’ work progress and provide timely feedback (e.g., in different phases of the students’ project) to ensure that their students are on the right track.

Although TWiki is fairly user-friendly, students’ comments show that it is desirable to offer them training on the use TWiki. Since students who are less well-versed in technology need more help on the use of TWiki, it would seem apt to offer all students brief training during regular class hours, and supplement it with more in-depth training in an extra lab sessions for those who need more instructions.

Programmers of TWiki, or wikis in general, need to come up with even more user-friendly wikis. For example, its formatting functions are not as good as MS Word as it lacks a spell/grammar checker. Furthermore, TWiki does not have a formal “discussion forum” or tools for teachers to create one. Due to this reason, the area “Group Discussion” created by the researcher of this paper is far from satisfactory. It needs much work from the programmers of TWiki to create a formal “discussion forum” so that students can have more effective and efficient discussions on TWiki. Besides, most of the negative comments suggested by the students are related to technical problems and unfamiliarity towards the wiki, which include formatting and uploading problems. It is important to eliminate the various potential technical problems and bugs (some have been mentioned in this article) for TWiki to be widely used in the future.


Notes1. Wikibooks are online books created by the wiki technology. For details, see

http://en .wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page2. Some of the questions asked for comments on wiki technology in general, as students used both

TWiki and Wikibook in the KM course – students first completed a draft chapter in TWiki and then copied it into Wikibook.

AcknowledgementsThanks to Miss Nikki Cheng and Miss Meryam Dabhoiwala for their excellent research support.

ReferencesAumueller, D. (2005). Semantic authoring and retrieval within a Wiki. Paper presented at the European

Semantic Web Conference (ESWC).Bold, M. (2006). Use of wikis in graduate course work. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17, 5-

14.Bruns, A., & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment: The M/Cyclopedia project. Paper

presented at the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis, San Diego, CA, U.S.A.Da Lio, E., Fraboni, L. L., & Leo, T. (2005). TWiki-based facilitation in a newly formed academic

community of practice. Paper presented at the 2005 international symposium on Wikis.Dalgaard, P. (2002). Introductory Statistics With R. New York: Springer. De Pedro, X., Rieradevall, M., López, P., Sant, D., Piñol, J., Núñez, Ll., Llobera, M. (2006a). Writing

documents collaboratively in higher education using traditional vs. wiki methodology (II): Quantitative results from a 2-year project study. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress of University Teaching and Innovation.

De Pedro, X., Rieradevall, M., López, P., Sant, D., Piñol, J., Núñez, L., et al. (2006b). Writing documents collaboratively in Higher education using Traditional vs. Wiki methodology (I): Qualitative results from a 2-year project study. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress of University Teaching and Innovation.

Ebersbach, A., Glaser, M., & Heigi, R. (2006). Wiki Web Collaboration. New York: Springer.Engstrom, M. E., & Jewett, D. (2005). Collaborative Learning: The wiki way. TechTrends, 49, 12-68.Guzdial, M., Rick, J., & Kehoe, C. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher-created collaborative

activities in Higher Education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 265-279.Hari, S., Egbu, C., Kumar, B. (2005). A knowledge capture awareness tool: An empirical study on small

and medium enterprises in the construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12, 533-567.

Jashapara, A. (2004). Knowledge Management: An Integrated Approach. Essex: Pearson.Lamb, A. (2004). Wide open spaces wikis ready or not. Educause Review, 39, 36-48.Liu, H. & Matthews, R. Shttp://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/robert.matthews. (2005). Vygotsky's

philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 6, 386-399.

Nicol, D., Littlejohn, A., & Grierson, H. (2005). The importance of structuring information and resources within shared workspaces during collaborative design learning. Open Learning, 20, 31-49.

Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a Teaching Tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57-72.

Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designing knowledge management systems for teaching and learning with wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16, 311-320.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In Encyclopedia of Education, (Vol. 3, 1370-1373. New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.

Schoolnet.com (2008). K12 Wiki - Constructivism (learning theory). Retrieved Feb 8, 2008 from http://www.schoolnet.com/Wikis/pages/wikiarticle.aspx?wikiid=1466

Smith, L. (2000). Knowledge discovery, capture and creation. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 26, 11-12.


http://www.schoolnet.com/Wikis/pages/wikiarticle.aspx?wikiid=1466

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/robert.matthews

Stuhlman, D. D. (2006). Knowledge Management Terms. Retrieved Dec 15, 2007 from http://home.earthlink.net/~ddstuhlman/defin1.htm.

TWiki (2007). TWiki - the Open Source Wiki for the Enterprise. Retrieved Dec 1, 2007 from http://twiki.org/

Further ReadingHolmes, B., Tangney, B., Fitzgibbon, A., Savage, T. (2001) Communal Constructivism: Students

constructing learning for as well as with others. Retrieved Jun 20, 2008 from Trinity College Dublin, Department of Computer Science Web site, Technical Report TCD-CS-2001-04, https://www.cs.tcd.ie/publications/tech-reports/reports.01/TCD-CS-2001-04.pdf (accessed 20 June 2008)

Lund, A., & Smørdal O. (2006) Is There a Space for the Teacher in a WIKI. Paper presented at the 2006 international symposium on Wikis, Odense, 21-23 August.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Syntheses. 80, 121-140.

Corresponding authorSamuel Kai-Wah Chu can be contacted at: [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

https://www.cs.tcd.ie/publications/tech-reports/reports.01/TCD-CS-2001-04.pdf

http://twiki.org/

Conference paper proposal - Faculty of...

Documents

Transcript of Conference paper proposal - Faculty of...