Article #7 - Is wiki an effective platform for group course work?

Article 7

Elgort, I., Smith, A.G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195-210. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/elgort.pdf 

Summary: Based on predominantly qualitative research conducted with two postgraduate Master’s level university courses, the article aimed to address “whether wikis could facilitate collaborative learning and positively affect student attitudes to group work” (p. 196) as well as to identify which aspects of collaboration could be improved by using wikis. The participants had little experience with online tools that facilitate student centred learning, or that shift the “balance of control over the structure and content of a part of the virtual space to the student” (p. 196). The inquiry is grounded in research showing that collaboration promotes and improves learning (Millis & Cottell, 1998; Barkley, Cross and Major, 2005) and is an important and valued life skill. The article argues that wikis not only provide an opportunity for collaboration, but also actively support that collaboration - partly by making the “quantity and quality of each group member's contribution more transparent, potentially encouraging participation and making it easier to mark group work” (p. 197). 

The vast majority of participants thought that the wiki was a good tool to collect and organise information for the assignment, and that it worked well as a tool to present the results of the group assignment. Participants were less certain about whether the use of the wiki encouraged better individual participation. Group activities “need to be designed to facilitate critical judgement and assessment criteria need to foreground analysis and evaluation of information” (p. 207). There was concern that some students felt they could have achieved better work on their own, and on the difficulties of marking wiki group work. The overall results were considered encouraging.

Evaluation: Both participant courses involved the use of digital tools, and not all had used wikis before - so the findings would need to be carefully considered in relation to using wikis with younger students. Certainly the ‘how to’ of the technology would need to be scaffolded with the other learning objectives - this would help to ensure that students share and exchange ideas rather than just posting information.

Source: The authors hold tertiary academic positions. The Australasian Journal of Educational Technology is the journal of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, which aims to promote research and scholarship on the integration of technology in tertiary education, promote effective practice, and inform policy. It uses a double blind peer-review process - this journal should be considered a quality source.

Relevance and comparison to other sources: The article highlights some of the scaffolding that would be needed for students of any age, but are particularly relevant for primary/secondary students.  The literature review was very clear and useful in itself. This would be a useful article for anyone considered the use of wikis in collaborative group work. It provides a strong contrast the the kind of active research used in Article 7, and provided more information on how the lecturers viewed the use of the wiki.