Chu, S.K.W., Cheng, E., & King, R.B. (2012). Effectiveness of the wiki technology in facilitating
group projects undertaken by secondary students. Paper presented at the University of Oxford
STORIES Department of Education conference. The University of Oxford, UK.
Effectiveness of the Wiki technology in facilitating group projects undertaken by secondary
students
Dr. Sam Chu1
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong
Dr. Eddie Cheng2
Hong Kong Institute of Education
Ronnel B. King1
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong
Abstract: Wikis have been increasingly used as a tool for teaching and learning.
Although its effectiveness has been generally acknowledged, the study of wikis from
the students’ perspective has not been fully explored. In this study, wiki was used as
an online platform for the co-construction of group projects among Hong Kong
secondary school students. A mixed-methods design was adopted. Survey results
indicated that Google Sites, the wiki used in this study was found to be useful in
terms of facilitating learning, motivation, group interaction, technology adoption, and
knowledge management. Interview data generally supported the quantitative findings.
However, problems were also identified with insufficient training argued as the most
salient one. Implications for integrating wikis into the school curriculum are
discussed.
Introduction
A wiki is a popular Web 2.0 technology, which provides a platform for users to share their contents,
such as articles, images, audios, and videos, within a social community (Hazari et al., 2009). It is
more than just a content management system as it not only empowers a group of users to share
knowledge, but also encourages them to communicate, collaborate, and interact through technology.
In the educational domain, wikis can help students work on a collaborative project, track the progress
of the work, and assist teachers in evaluating each student’s contribution to the overall project output
(Mak & Coniam, 2008). It has been used for teaching at various levels of educational institutions,
including secondary schools, colleges, and universities (Konieczny, 2007; Mak & Coniam, 2008;
Naismith et al., 2010; Parker & Chao, 2007; Raman et al., 2005).
Although wikis have been found to facilitate teaching and learning (e.g., Chu, 2008; Chu &
Kennedy, 2011; Hazari et al., 2009; Woo et al., 2011), other studies have questioned its effectiveness
(e.g. Neumann & Hood, 2009; Thomas et al., 2009). For example, Cole (2009, p. 146) claimed that
“wiki had little impact on student engagement simply because the participating students chose not to
post to the wiki.” Some concerns were also raised with regard to the difficulty in making students
familiar with the wiki technology with a larger investment on teacher guidance required (Schlager &
Fusco, 2003). Cunningham and Leuf (2001, p. 30) also questioned the widespread applicability of
wikis in certain educational settings. They argued, “Not everyone wants a wiki. Not everyone needs a
wiki. Not every situation benefits from becoming an online discussion or collaboration forum” (see
also Carroll et al., 2003).
Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effectiveness of using the wiki technology in
facilitating online group project work among secondary school students in the HK context. In addition,
most of the relevant research studies were undertaken in Western contexts with relatively fewer
studies done in the Asian setting. As such, this study can provide some insights with regard to the
D:\106757442.doc 3/7/2016 1:29:29 AM
1
applicability or non-applicability of wikis in an Asian secondary school setting and hopefully provide
some suggestions in order to enhance the instructional benefits students can derive from it.
Wikis in Education and Social-Constructivist Approach to Learning
One of the major advantages of wikis in the educational context is its ability to facilitate the coconstruction of knowledge and to enhance collaboration among students. The social-constructivist
approach to education could serve as a generative framework for looking at how these wiki
characteristics could promote learning. This approach focuses on the importance of joint efforts
among students (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005), which cannot be obtained without “appreciation for
multiple perspectives, social interaction, embedding learning in relevant contexts, encouraging
ownership in the learning process, embedding learning in social experience, encouraging use of
multiple modes of representation, and encouraging self awareness of the knowledge construction
process” (Hazari et al., 2009, p. 189). Social constructivists urge the need for peer collaboration
among members rather than adopting the traditional competitive approach (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992).
Peer collaboration is a term coined by Vygotsky (1978) when defining the notion of zone of proximal
development, which pinpoints the benefit of working with more competent peers who could help in
increasing fellow students’ competencies.
Social constructivism extends the view of each learner as an independent individual by giving
a wider consideration of the effect of the learner’s background and culture that affects the learner’s
learning (Eggen & Kauchak, 2004). As Palincsar (1998) mentioned, the social constructivist
perspective views that the co-construction of knowledge is a result of interdependency of the social
and individual processes. In a group learning event, other members’ experience and background
becomes influential in the knowledge building process. This knowledge emerges as people mix their
internalized knowledge with their prior knowledge, and this emergent knowledge represents the
product of collective knowledge building through the wiki, which is more than only information
sharing (Cress & Kimmerle, 2008). Woo et al. (2011) studied the effectiveness of wikis based on the
three types of affordances (i.e., educational, social, and technological) raised by Kirschner et al. (2004)
and found that wiki’s key affordances were mainly social, especially providing an online platform for
collaborative problem solving and peer critiquing.
Technologies have both advantages and disadvantages (Tang & Austin, 2009). Potential
challenges in the implementation of wikis include information overload, unfamiliarity of technology,
misuse of technology, and social obstacles. For example, Naismith et al. (2011) found that lack of
familiarity with the wiki could lead to communication difficulties. Thus, they suggested that spending
more time and forming smaller groups may help students familiarize with the technology and with
working collaboratively. Lin and Kelsey (2009), when studying how the wiki affected the
performance of a group of graduate students on an adult education course, found that the students
required some warm-up periods (i.e., completing some exercises) for the purpose of familiarizing with
the tool and negotiating roles before they could start writing collaboratively. Tools can also be used
inadequately by students due to the intricate interplay among factors, such as prior knowledge,
motivation, self-regulation strategies, and domain-related interest (Clarebout et al., 2009; Jiang et al.,
2009).
In the light of the above arguments, the current research explores whether the wiki is
appropriate for supporting group projects. Through investigating those students who were involved in
a group project with the use of a wiki technology, this research attempts to gain insights into the
effectiveness of the technology. In addition to the above research objective, this research will explore
the disadvantages or obstacles encountered by the students in using the wiki for their group work.
Research Method
This study adopted a mixed-methods approach to collect and analyze qualitative data. Triangulating
data collected by different methods can help to establish more meaningful interpretation (Hanson et
al., 2005). Yin (2009) agreed that multiple sources of evidence (interviews, reflections, etc.) are able
to resonate experientially with a broad cross-section of readers, thereby facilitating greater
understanding of the phenomenon.
Description of the Group Project
D:\106757442.doc 3/7/2016 1:29:29 AM
2
A five-month intervention program was designed for students to conduct their group project work
about social focus (i.e., writing on a social topic) in their general education course using a wiki tool
called Google Sites (http://sites.google.com/). Google Sites is a platform in which people can work
together to add file attachments, information from other Google applications (like Google Docs,
Google Calendar, YouTube, and Picasa), and new free-form content (Google Sites overview, 2011).
To scaffold the students in collaborative writing, teachers told the students to make use of Google
Sites to co-construct their writing by exchanging their ideas and comments through the text-based
communication platform. In Google Sites, an index comprising twelve categories (including project
cover, table of contents, background of study, literature review, research design and methodology,
etc.) guided students in writing their drafts. The contents from the resulting final draft were presented
on panels during the school open days. The teachers graded the group project work based on the final
draft version in Google Sites, the final version of Word files, and their presentations.
Data Collection
This study employed two different ways to collect data for achieving the research objective. Firstly,
face-to-face interviews were conducted in Chinese with students to solicit their opinions from preplanned and open-ended questions. Due to the scope of this study, only those students who received
the highest grades for their group project work from each class were targeted. It is expected that these
high-performing students should be willing to put more effort to explore the utility of Google Sites.
Therefore, they should provide more useful comments for this preliminary investigation. Four Form 1
(Grade 7) groups and four Form 2 (Grade 8) groups were invited to be interviewed for about twenty
minutes each. Interviews were recorded by voice recorders and were then transcribed into text (.TXT)
files. Following Cavana et al. (2001), a probing process was developed to first ask a set of primary
questions. Then, interviewers asked secondary questions by paraphrasing the salient points from the
interviewees’ answers to the primary questions. This process moved on until a summary of points had
been drafted for each primary question. How far the interview should progress for a particular
question was dependent on the judgment made by the interviewer regarding whether the points could
provide sufficient contributions to the research objective.
Secondly, students’ reflections obtained through writing at the end of their group work were
elicited. These reflections represented students’ feedback in revealing the progress, including ease of
use of the technology, users’ collaboration, and technical and non-technical issues of utilizing Google
Sites.
Data Analyses
In the semi-structured interviews with students, answers to the questions were summarized.
Given the themes specified for investigation, using such an a priori structure helps to facilitate the
process of analysis (Cavana et al., 2001). Moreover, open questions in the semi-structured interviews
and students’ written reflections were summarized qualitatively by means of content analysis, which
is a systematic approach to analyzing textual data or communication contents without a predetermined structure. According to Holsti (1969), content analysis is able to make inferences about
the characteristics of messages by identifying trends in messages, comparing messages to specific
standards, and relating known characteristics of sources to messages.
Findings
Advantages of the Wiki
This research examined whether Google Sites was effective. The findings were grouped based on the
five dimensions of pedagogical value, where four of them were suggested by Hazari et al. (2009) (i.e.,
learning, motivation, group interaction, and technology), and the fifth one was suggested by Chu
(2008) (i.e., knowledge management).
Students’ opinions from the interviews were positive regarding learning by use of Google
Sites. For example, it was sometimes difficult to express something in words during meetings, but
Google Sites allowed students to learn from the correction made by another student without verbal
explanation. Teachers could also trace who had worked online and who had contributed more. Then,
they could praise for those who performed better and could also provide some assistance those who
need improvements. This would greatly enhance learning by the students.
D:\106757442.doc 3/7/2016 1:29:29 AM
3
Interviewees had shown positive attitudes toward its utility and were motivated to use it. For
example, with the help of the function of the content list, students could for organize the content in a
more systematic way and could choose what information should be added or deleted. Students could
read documents anywhere and anytime. They did not need to attend face-to-face meetings or to
communicate by phone calls, thereby reducing the amount of work necessary to be undertaken
together and being more convenience for working online. Interviewees also suggested that Google
Sites allowed communication through writing and uploading of documents. It also grouped work
more tidily. Students could see and edit the content, add more information and review previous
contents, and change the display to make a better look.
An advantage of Google Sites, suggested by the interviewees, was that students could work
online together as they could concurrently log in the system. Google Sites had various functions to
guide the production of group work. It also allowed students to search and think before making any
comments available online for other team members. Previously, group members put different parts
together when they met. This led to inconsistent formats, more language errors, etc. With Google
Sites, they used the same format as students worked merely on the newest version of the document
and could correct errors for other students. Google Sites provided a virtual environment allowing
them to work together at any time. Interviewees suggested that this would facilitate communication
and reflection, and work could be completed more efficiently.
Furthermore, interviewees admitted that Google Sites was very user-friendly as it was
convenient to edit and add contents and webpages. Students were able to modify the uploaded
document easily, while they could browse the newest version of the document. Previously, students
needed to form a meeting for revising their work so as to avoid working on various versions of work
by different members. If students liked, they could revise work immediately. So, quick responses
could be provided to other group members.
Interviewees finally admitted that Google Sites could help manage knowledge as it provided a
framework that could help to sort work by different students, who could upload attachments
(information, such as PowerPoint slides and reports, that could be used at any time by every member)
online so that they did not need to email the attachments to others. This prevented repetition of
information uploaded by various students, thereby reducing the waste of time on information search.
Disadvantages and Obstacles of the Wiki
Despite its advantages, some disadvantages can be traced from interviews. For example, for using
Google Sites, students must have a computer at home if they wanted to do their project at home. Also,
for those who were not strong in using software, they might not like to use Google Sites. Another
interviewee admitted that he or she did not know how to use Google Sites, thus needed to seek help
from teammates. Many students admitted that although Google Sites was not difficult to use, they still
needed considerable times to learn to be familiar with the format, functions, etc. An interviewee
further argued that before one student wanted to change his or her mind to delete a modified version,
it is possible that other students might have already worked on the modified version.
Other disadvantages of Google Sites include the followings. Students could not adjust the
basic design of Google Sites, which only allowed students to use some default designs instead of
creating new designs. Google Sites did not provide spelling check. Google Sites allowed teachers to
read everything inside it, so this situation raised privacy concerns. Google Sites did not provide video
and/or audio functions for online verbal discussion. However, the interviewees incorrectly mentioned
that Google Sites could not allow the addition of pictures, the change of font style and size, the
tracking of the date and time when someone had modified one’s uploaded work, and the saving of
links (a function supported by Delicious). Their misunderstanding of the functionality of Google Sites
further revealed their unfamiliarity with the technology.
Discussion
The interview study has shown that students had positive views about Google Sites. In general, they
revealed that Googles Sites helped them learn, motivated them to use it, supported group interaction,
were easy to use, and helped manage knowledge.
Consistent with Naismith et al. (2011), the study also found that students preferred to work
face-to-face and use other technologies (e.g., Microsoft Office and email) rather than using the wiki
D:\106757442.doc 3/7/2016 1:29:29 AM
4
when they were not familiar with the wiki technology. When students are not confident in using the
wiki, their tensions will lead them to work offline instead of online. Training is therefore crucial in
facilitating the use of wikis by equipping teachers and students with sufficient wiki knowledge and
skills (Raman et al., 2005; Da Lio et al, 2005). As noted by Huang and Yang (2009), if students can
use the system more, they can engage in more collaborative activities, which can result in achieving
better learning performance.
Moreover, in order to motivate students to exchange knowledge through wikis, the barrier
must be removed. As suggested by Hazari et al. (2009), increased project participation and
involvement in the wiki learning environment has the potential for enhancing communication and
social interaction, which, according to Moller et al. (2005), will in turn induce a deeper level of
participation, thereby resulting in greater knowledge sharing and retention. Teachers should therefore
encourage students to participate in every part of the project and constructively challenge their
partners and edit their work (Hemmi et al., 2009). Then, such a singular text/plural authors approach
(i.e., multiple authors writing a single text) can help to promote joint accountability and co-ownership
and hence encourage students to maximize their contributions (Storch, 2005).
This research has two research implications. Firstly, this study investigated the effectiveness
of Google Sites with a qualitative approach. In the future, a quantitative inquiry can be set to examine
the impact of these dimensions (as independent variables) on project performance (as a dependent
variable) with a much larger sample. Secondly, the relationship between wikis and collaboration has
not been fully understood. Although empirical studies have found that wikis created an online
platform for collaborative writing (e.g., Trentin, 2009; Woo et al., 2011), there is no sufficient
evidence supporting the co-construction of knowledge in the wiki (Hughes & Narayan, 2009).
Therefore, how wikis support collaborative writing is worth of scrutiny.
Conclusions
The present study investigated the effectiveness of the wiki in support of group projects among HK
secondary school students. A popular wiki tool, Google Sites, was adopted in this research. Findings
from the interviews and reflections suggested that Google Sites was generally accepted to be useful.
However, interviewees also admitted that the major barrier of using Google Sites was insufficient
training provided to students. It is expected that once students have acquired the technological skills
and are able to manage Google Sites, they might be more willing to use it so that their group project
performance can be improved by their enhanced collaborative writing.
Acknowledgement
This research has been supported by a General Research Fund administered by Research Grants
Council (project code: HKU 743510H) of the Hong Kong SAR Government.
References
Bruns, A., & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment: The M/Cyclopedia project.
WikiSym 2005–Conference Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on wikis,
October 16-18, (pp. 25-32), San Diego, CA.
Carroll, J. M., Choo, C. W., Dunlap, D. R., Isenhour, P. L., Kerr, S. T., & MacLean, A. (2003).
Knowledge management support for teachers. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 51(4), 42-64.
Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative and
quantitative methods. Milton: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Chu, S. K. W. (2008). TWiki for knowledge building and management. Online Information Review,
32(6), 745-758.
Chu, S.K.W. & Kennedy, D.M. (2011). Using online collaborative tools for groups to co-construct
knowledge. Online Information Review, 35(4): 581-597
Clarebout, G., & Elen, J. (2009). Benefits of inserting support devices in electronic learning
environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 804-810.
Cole, M. (2009). Using wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches.
Computers & Education, 52, 141-146.
D:\106757442.doc 3/7/2016 1:29:29 AM
5
Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge
building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3,
105-122.
Cunningham, W., & Leuf, B. (2001). The wiki way: Quick collaboration on the web. Addison-Wesley.
Da Lio, E., Fraboni, L. L., & Leo, T. (2005). TWiki-based facilitation in a newly formed academic
community of practice. WikiSym 2005–Conference Proceedings of the 2005 International
Symposium on Wikis, October 16-18, (pp. 85-112), San Diego, CA.
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen D. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation.
(Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms, (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Google Sites overview (2011). Google Sites overview. http://www.google.com/sites/overview.html
Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed
methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2),
224-235.
Hazari, S., North, A., & Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating pedagogical value of wiki technology.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187-198.
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies
in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 19-30.
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Huang, S.-L., & Yang, C.-W. (2009). Designing a semantic bliki system to support different types of
knowledge and adaptive learning. Computers & Education, 53, 701-712.
Hughes, J. E., & Narayan, R. (2009). Collaboration and learning with wikis in post-secondary
classrooms. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8, 63-82.
Jiang, L., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2009). The relationships between learner variables, tool-usage
behavior and performance. Computer in Human Behavior, 25(2), 501-509.
Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative
learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52(3), 47-66.
Konieczny, P. (2007). Wikis and Wikipedia as a teaching tool. International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, 4(1), 15-34.
Li, X., Chu, S. K. W., Ki, W. W. & Woo, M. M. (2012). Using a wiki-based collaborative process
writing pedagogy to facilitate collaborative writing among Chinese primary school students.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 159-181.
Lin, H., & Kelsey, K. D. (2009). Building a networked environment in wikis: The evolving phases of
a collaborative learning in a wikibook project. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
40, 145-169.
Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary
school students in Hong Kong. System, 36, 437-455.
Moller, L., Huett, J., Holder, D., Young, J., Harvey, D., & Godshalk, V. (2005). Examining the
impact of learning communities on motivation. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2),
137-143.
Naismith, L. Lee, B.-H., & Pilkington, R. M. (2011). Collaborative learning with a Wiki: Differences
in perceived usefulness in two contexts of use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27,
228-242.
Neumann, D. L. & Hood, M. (2009). The effects of using a wiki on student engagement and learning
of report writing skills in a university statistics course. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 25, 382–398.
Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49, 345-375.
Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge
and Learning Objects, 3, 57-70.
Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designing knowledge management systems for teaching
and learning with wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(3), 311-320.
D:\106757442.doc 3/7/2016 1:29:29 AM
6
Schlager, M. S., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology, and communities
of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society, 19, 203-220.
Schwartz, L., Clark, S., Cossarin, M., & Rudolp, J. (2004). Educational Wikis: features and selection
criteria. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.
http://cde.athabascau.ca/softeval/r.... Retrieved on October 20, 2011. Available in PDF.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.
Tang, T. L.-P., & Austin, M. J. (2009). Students’ perceptions of teaching technologies, application of
technologies, and academic performance. Computers and Education, 53, 1241-1255.
Thomas P., King D., &Minocha S. (2009). The effective use of a simple wiki to support collaborative
learning activities. Computer Science Education, 19, 293–313.
Trentin, G. (2009). Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution to a collaborative learning project.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 43-55.
Woo, M., Chu, S., Ho, A., & Li, X. (2011). Using a wiki to scaffold primary-school students’
collaborative writing. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 43-54.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design & method, (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 203-228.
D:\106757442.doc 3/7/2016 1:29:29 AM
7