Name: Viktor Bereziouk
Instructor: Dr. Sharon O’Connor –Petruso
Course: CBSE 7201 T
Fall 2013
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………3
Problem………………………………………………………………………........4
Literature Review………………………………………………………………….5
Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………6
Methods, Participants, Instruments…..…………………………………………….7
Threats to Internal Validity………………………………………………………....8
Threats to External Validity………………………………………………………...9
Data ……………..………………………………………………………..……......10
Pre-Test/Post -Test Results………………………………………………..……….11
Sample Questions from Questionnaire…………………………………………….12
Survey Results and Analysis………………………….…………………………...13
Discussion and Implications……………………………………………………….14
References…………………………………………………………………………15
Abstract
 This Action Research Project (ARP) aimed to explore the
effects of Wiki assignments on student engagement and
productivity. Ten fifth-grade students from a Title-1 public
school were randomly selected and equally divided into two
groups. Both groups received a pre-test assignment which
involved completing a written assignment with pen and paper
alone. The next stage of the ARP involved the experimental
group completing an assignment on a computer and posting it
on a Wiki page and a control group completing another
assignment with pen and paper. The results show that student
engagement and productivity was higher for the experimental
group. The limitations of this ARP include a very small number
of participants. Future ARP should investigate the effects of
student engagement and productivity with a larger sample size.
Problem
While observing students during a writing assignment, I’ve
noticed they had trouble staying on task and producing
much writing. I began to wonder how I could encourage my
students to stay engaged and productive. Research into using
Wiki to encourage student engagement and productivity
suggests mixed results. This Action Research Project set out
to investigate the effect of Wiki to encourage student
engagement and productivity during writing.
Literature Review
“Students reported that collaborative wiki writing increased
their vocabulary, improved their grammar, and overall
improved their writing.” (Woo, Chu, Ho, and Li (2011).
“Increased student engagement in the writing and discussion
of their projects.” (Pifare and Fisher (2011).
Hypothesis
1. I expect student engagement to increase.
2. I expect student productivity to increase.
Methods, Participants, Instruments
 Methods




Quasi-Experimental Design.
10 participants are randomly selected and split into two groups.
Pre-Test (O) will be administered to both groups (X1,X2). The experimental group (X2) will receive the
treatment (X) and both groups will receive the Post-Test (O) to determine the experiment’s success.
The symbolic design :OX1X2-XO.
Participants

10 fifth graders from Title-1 public school in Brooklyn, NY
Instruments


Demographics survey
Grading rubric
History: Unforeseen events/ teacher or students absence.
Maturation: I don’t think the students would lose interest in this
experiment because they will know that they are in an experiment and
that would keep them excited to keep interest.
Selection Maturation Interaction: My participant will not have different
maturation rates. They are from the same class.
Instrumentation: Instrumentation would not be changed and I do
not see any conflict.
Ecological Validity: Because my sample size will be small they cannot be
generalized. However, if the treatment is successful, the study can be
reproduced with a larger sample.
Selection-Treatment Interaction: Participants may be placed in groups.
For instance, the purpose of this study is to see if students can work
better in a group completing an assignment on a Wiki page. Some
students may be more willing to work and others may not. I would want
to include those who do not like to work into a group with those who do
and see if their attitude towards work changes.
Reactive Arrangements/Participants Effects: With regards to the Novelty
Effect, I believe that the group which will do an assignment of the Wiki
page will feel excited and more willing to complete a Wiki assignment
than a traditional way.
Pre/Post-Test results
Students Survey
Pre-Post Test Results
Students Pre-Test Post-Test
1
65
90
2
50
75
3
70
90
4
55
85
5
50
80
6
75
70
7
55
60
8
65
65
9
60
60
10
50
50
Average
54.83333
68.33333
Median
79.5
87.5
Mode
40
55
Range
59
35
Conclusion
Limitations
Future Focus
 Small sample size
 Larger sample size
 Not generalizable
O’Connor-Petrusso, O. (2013). Descriptive Statistic
Threats to Validity [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved
from https://bbhos.cuny.edu/webapps/portal/frameset