(1) Jornada Espiral - 10th June 2006 (http://espiral.xtec.net)



(Jornada Espiral, "Entornos colaborativos para aprendee: Comunidades Virtuales de aprendizaje" (Collaborative environments to learn: Virtual Communities of Learning). Saturday 10th de June 2006. 9.30h to 18.45h. Col·legi de Doctors i Llicenciats. Rambla Catalunya 8, pral. - Barcelona)

The full programme can be read (in Catalan) at: http://espiral.xtec.net/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=78 . My written communication can be found in Spanish - link below). Since it's not in English, I'd like to say that we've been using in educational scenarios some of the new features in TikiWiki 1.10 (Contributions & Action logs, mainly, with some improvements to Tikisheets).

Cómo evitar el “café para todos??? al evaluar trabajos en grupo, y de paso, estimular el aprendizaje reflexivo: resultados preliminares en el marco del proyecto AWikiForum???. Texto completo: http://gclub.ub.es/awikiforum/dl6 (pdf, 954Kb)

SUMMARY
En este proyecto concreto se pretende potenciar que el alumnado tenga que pensar qué tipo de contribución quiere hacer en las actividades no presenciales, preferentemente antes de hacer su contribución (fundamentalmente, discusiones o debates vía foros electrónicos, o al editar una página de un trabajo en grupo, a través de Wikis).

Con un doble objetivo:
(1) Facilitar la evaluación que hace el profesorado de las contribuciones individuales del alumnado en las actividades no presenciales de carácter individual, y especialmente, las de carácter colaborativo (y así evitar el tradicional "café para todos", cuando se tiene que poner a todos los miembros de un grupo de trabajo la misma nota).

Y (2): Estimular el aprendizaje reflexivo del alumnado, pues se les plantea la pregunta de "¿Qué tipo de contribución es la que voy a hacer - o estoy haciendo - yo ahora?"?, sabiendo de antemano que los objetivos de la asignatura buscan trabajar una serie de competencias, que llevan asociados unos determinados tipos de contribuciones en las actividades pautadas o sugeridas por el profesorado para el aprendizaje del alumnado.

En el proyecto se parte de la necesidad detectada de estimular al alumnado para que sea consciente más fácilmente de qué contribuciones ha realizado (y de qué tipo) en las actividades semipresenciales habituales de una asignatura (por las cuales se le evaluará), y pueda autoregularse y autoestimularse, a su vez, a realizar contribuciones más elaboradas y así contribuir de forma más significativa a adquirir un aprendizaje significativo en el marco del nuevo espacio europeo de educación superior , ayudando además, a una evaluación continua de sus actividades de aprendizaje.

Así, en esta comunicación se muestran los resultados preliminares de aplicar esta metodologia de trabajo en una asignatura piloto, en el marco de varios proyectos de innovación docente en curso (http://gclub.ub.es/awikiforum/file7).

(2) & (3) IV CIDUI (International Congress of University Teaching and Innovation" (http://cidui.upc.edu)


(The Congress will be held in Barcelona on July 5, 6 and 7, 2006, at the Faculty of Economic and Business Sciences of the University of Barcelona, located at Avenida Diagonal, 690, CP 08034)


There I'll show the results from UniWiki project.

(2). "Writing documents collaboratively in Higher education using Traditional vs. Wiki methodology (I): QUALITATIVE results from a 2-year project study" Full text of short version: http://uniwiki.ourproject.org/Article+Wikis

SUMMARY
Students currently have to invest much time doing group assignments, and it is expected that they will have to invest some more with the European credits system (ETCS). As they do not always take enough profit of their time working in group, we tried a new methodology of group work using a fairly new computer tool in teaching and learning environments, called Wiki (Cunningham 1998, Schneider 2004).

After two years of use in the auspices of some projects related to innovation in teaching, we collected a list of advantages and disadvantages of the new methodology from the opinions of the teaching staff who had used it.

Besides, we collected opinions from surveys to students using traditional methodology of group work and to others using Wiki methodology.

Three main conclusions arose from the qualitative results of the experience:

  1. teaching staff appraised in Wiki methodology the easiness and speed of access, version control, registry of who, when and what changed in each document, even if some minor disadvantages were also noted,
  2. students from all subjects using Wiki methodology showed in surveys less negative comments than students with traditional methodology, and
  3. letting others to see or modify your work is worth, even when it's not finished and you fear that others read your "work in progress" which may be messy or with important gaps.

(3). "Writing documents collaboratively in Higher education using Traditional vs. Wiki methodology (II): QUANTITATIVE results from a 2-year project study" Full text of short version: http://uniwiki.ourproject.org/Article+Wikis+2

SUMMARY
If the first part of the results from the recent projects in innovation teaching using Wiki methodology for doing group assignments in university degrees showed the qualitative results (De Pedro et al. 2006), this second part focuses more on the quantitative results.

Data came from three sources:

  • (a) individual surveys to students using either Traditional or Wiki methodology, including closed questions (1 to 5),
  • (b) a table where they auto-recorded the time invested per week and per type of tasks to complete the group assignment, and
  • (c) their academic marks in the group assignments, evaluated with common criteria for both methodologies.


Conclusions from the results obtained stated four main ideas:

  1. Wiki methodology in big groups - 15 students - showed a clear enhancement in quality (higher marks) with less overall time devoted to finish the work;
  2. Results for smaller groups were not clear, and performance using Wiki methodology seemed to depend on other factors;
  3. an "editor in chief" is very important and needed for higher final quality of the work produced, regardless of methodology followed, even if this task was apparently facilitated by Wiki methodology;
  4. students using Wiki methodology devoted less time than the ones using traditional methodology in the items:
    • "writing the work",
    • "exchanging files and other material", and in some cases, in
    • "structuring" and "homogenisation of the style, markup, and content" of the work, as well as in "meetings in person".


Of course, everybody is welcome... wink

And if anybody else wants to help to improve TikiWiki for educational use, come to http://edu.tikiwiki.org and share your ideas and/or experiences! smile

Cheers,

Xavier
http://tikiwiki.org/xavi

P.S: This work couldn't have been possible without all the previous nice work done by all TikiWiki community since it's origin (thanks to all for your "contributions" wink). And it wouldn't have been possible, either, without the help and support from many tiki devs., and specially without the suport (retributed but also voluntarily sometimes) received from Sylvie Greverend (thanks, "Sylvieg", as always! smile).

And last (but not least), I'd like to thank specially also to http://ourproject.org (op.o) server and admin. staff (specially Vicente - vjrj :-). As well, without op.o project, we wouldn't have got such results due to lack of good hardware and admin support in the server side (and op.o is brilliant shared hosting for copyleft'ed projects!, and very easy for installing multitikis)