Cooperation tools: wikis vs Y!G (the choice)

I am managing a project where teachers of several schools, some far apart, have to cooperate. So I had to decide which sharing tool could be suitable for our needs.

As a first choice, after previous experiences, I thought that a wiki could be the best option: a wiki hosted on my school's web site or rather on an online service as pbwiki, with restricted access to the teachers involved in the project.

Then I remembered Yahoo!Groups, which I had used in past occasions only in a very limited way, and mainly out of curiosity, the choice fell on this latter tool.

First of all it's simpler than a wiki, which would have been a totally new experience for most of my colleagues. The major source of problems for Y!G, as far as I know, is a subscription process that's not completely linear, with the need to create a Y! profile and this sometimes gets the process stuck.

Yahoo!Groups is surely less flexible and more standardized and does not allow all the management freedom characterizing a wiki. But perhaps for teachers just learning to use web tools to cooperate and work together, a wiki is overdimensioned and too complex without an adequate of initial training.

Besides, Y!G is essentially a mailing list, and this is the feature primarily interesting in my case. The file repository is enough for contents to be shared and modified, and news can be transmitted through collective messages.

I plan to go back to this topic at the end of the project, to give a more factual assessment of this use of Y!G.

Wikis with fifteen-sixteen-agers

Just to get back in activity with the blog, I'm updating the last post.

Wikis with fifteen-sixteen-agers. We finished them and the wikis are (almost) ready and eventually I was able to sort the final questionnaires and put them together.

Four classes, four wikis, one about electrization, one about lightnings and two about equilibrium in fluids.

The work was arranged as follows:

1. researching infos to answer some questions raised by observing some phenomena
2. information accumulation, skimming, group rewriting processes, ending in a single document for every student/group containing all information deemed pertaining, necessary and sufficient to describe the subject
3. choosing key-words and mind-mapping
   
4. assigning key-words to students and writing of individual encyclopedic entries about key-word
5. wiki population with
   
1. texts
2. images and graphic elements
3. links according to the mind-map and more
   
6. reading and mutual peer editing of the encyclopedic entries
7. self-assessment about the quality of own work, teacher's assessment about the quality of work, classwork on contents with a questionnaire about appreciation

From a scientific point of view, this should only be the beginning of a methodologic process that should lead to experimental verification in lab of the explanations found to the phenomena.

For me, it is anyway a starting point. The interesting thing that I want to share are the results of the appreciation questionnaire. The question was:

Question 3: With the wiki activity we worked in quite an unusual way: try to balance the books about this methodology, expressing in particular your opinion about:
a) is it or is it not useful to learn more (and, in case, which kind of thigs can you learn better and which can you learn worse?)
b) is it or is it not useful to motivate you to study
c) which aspects of this work do you find more positive and which more critical
d) suggestions, various thoughts, your ideas about what we have done.

The results are interesting. 37 students took part. The answers were free and of various length, some following the scheme, other more original. Here is a summary of the answers.

Pros

• you can learn ICT (32)
• you can learn physics (22)
• it makes studying physics light (21)
• you get motivation from the fact that you are creating something (20)
• you learn to use the net in order to study and learn (14)
• you get to cooperate with your school mates, even when they live far away (14)
• it's different (13)
• you can go in depth with unknown words and concepts (10)
• you learn a method of work that will be useful in future (8)
• you share ideas (8)
• you are forced to pay attention to the connections between concepts (8)
• you reach plenty of specific and detailed information (7)
• you get motivated by using computers and the net (6)
• you can study in a creative and constructive way (5)
• you learn to cooperate (5)
• it facilitates theoretical learning (5)
• working so much on shared information you get to understand its contents (4)
• the product grows with everybody's contribution (4)
• it's accessible everywhere and always (3)
• you get to interact directly and at any time with the teacher (2)
• it makes your school innovative (2)
• you become curious about the final result (2)
• you are responsible of what you write (2)
• you produce your own studying materials (2)
• you can work alone or in a group (2)
• you improve the net (2)
• you learn how to evaluate and improve your and other mates' work (2)
• you share working methods (1)
• it motivates students who like working in groups and share (1)
• you get to use the school's ICT labs (1)
• you don't write with a pen but on a keyboard (1)
• you learn to express yourself in an appropriate way (1)
• it's easier than learning on books (1)
• it forces you to read everybody's work (1)

Cons

• it's difficult if you don't have a computer or an internet connection at home, or if the schools computers are slow or malfunctioning (16)
• technically editing isn't too easy (5)
• sometimes the information you find is not correct or appropriate or adequate or reliable (4)
• some can work more and others less, coordinating is not always easy (2)
• working in the PC room is distracting (2)
• sometimes you end working alone anyway (1)
• little practical learning (1)
• there's a risk that someone's contributions are mishandled by others (1)
• you go in too little depth regarding physics (1)
• someone can be unable to study on a PC (1)
• the topic wasn't interesting (1)
• you learn well your own contribution but not the others' (1)
• not enough time to absorb the contents (1)

Suggestions

• work like this more frequently (30)
• use this method in other subjects or topics (4)
• make the wikis accessible to everyone, not only to our classes (3)
• keep changing groups (2)
• build a social network (1)
• build a gaming site (1)
• improve graphics (1)
• the school should provide tools for everyone to have an experience like this (1)
• choose better topics (1)
• insert exercises (1)
• insert summaries (1)
• insert lesson notes (1)
• use IM services (1)

Feels like it's a good first time. Although I have some corrections and steerings to think of for the next time. In a next post I'll focus on these.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Wiki, didactics and assessment

As I wrote in a previous post, I decided to experiment using didactically a wiki with my four 14-16ers classes.

This experience, that's proceeding with some labour but, for now, in a satisfactory way, is teaching me a lot. First of all it teaches me that a wiki is just a tool. Finding colleagues who are so fond of technology in education that they miss its goal, is easy today. So, a wiki is a tool serving didactics, let me write it down clearly so I won't forget even if right now I adore wikis.

This, to me, means that, more than its practical usage (that has still some educational values in a school environment), its worth is the side-work. Preparing texts and materials, building the conceptual network, organizing the work, timeliness, accuracy: these are, in my opinion, aspects that must get through in a wiki-related project, perhaps even as assessment indicators for the completed project.

If our idea is to help our students to learn how to learn (repetition is on purpose), we would do well if we provide them with methods, in order to lead them without doing the work for them. For this I think that a good organization of a wiki-related project is necessary: so students can take advantage of the wiki both in learning the subject-theme the wiki is about, and also, and especially, in reflecting on the methods and tools of technologically assisted collaborative learning.

Publishing a wiki is not the end of the project. The "dry-run" publication phase must lead to improvement of the finished product, before its possible "www" publication. So all students must explore the conceptual network represented in the wiki, be able to intervene improving and augmenting the contents already present or suggesting options to their authors for more radical changes, which, in turn, the authors must be able to accept or refuse giving reasons.

Commenting on a post of hers, I asked Talia to suggest how one can assess e-learning in the classroom. I don't want to be lazy, so I'll try to give my contribution, in spite of my confused feelings and not being an expert in the field. I think I can safely say that a wiki per se is un-assessable, in the sense that it is a collective product and it's impossible to partially assess individual contributions. What can we assess, though?

1. in the initial phase (pre-wiki): participation, quality and quantity of information found, timeliness, respecting tasks...
2. in the publication phase: care of contents and of links
3. in the final phase (post-wiki): the level of interaction and understanding shown in discussions about possible variants and corrections, the depth of the methodology and meta-subject reflection about the work done
4. in the summative phase (extra-wiki): specific learning of the subject-theme as shown in a suitable classwork.
   

Of these four phases, the first two seem open to self-assessment by students, or peer-assessment, while the last two are more traditional and require expert and competent eyes of the teacher. The way to organize self-assessment or peer-assessment can depend, in my opinion, on the age and maturity of the students. It can be an anonymous matrix where each student marks his/her own and his/her mates' behaviour relatively to the indicators, or a grading list. One must pay attention that the assessment is specific, maybe even giving reasons, about the project and regarding only aspects contained in the indicators. For this, it can be limited to a self-assessment and to an assessment of mates belonging to the same work group.

I think that in a collaborative activity such as this, it's useful that

• not only contents are assessed
• not only the teacher assesses

I find it's even more useful for a teacher to experiment, be it only once, on an activity whose analysis and assessment levels are necessarily so complex. It motivates, it helps to refocus one's objectives and expectations, it opens one's mind, it forces reflection. In a word, it's healthy.

Blogged with the Flock Browser