Fullscreen
Wikisym 2007. Monday Oct. 22nd, Montreal, Canada (wikisym.org)
Print

"Contribution types" in Wikis - using Tikiwiki. Xavier de Pedro

"Contribution types" in Wikis (using Tikiwiki)
”New Method Using Wikis and Forums to Evaluate Individual Contributions in Cooperative Work while Promoting Experiential Learning: Results from Preliminary experience"

Xavier de Pedro

Ecology Department
University of Barcelona. Catalonia. Spain



Introduction. What is it about?
  • Asking students to think about and select which type of contributions, from an ordered by importance list, they are producing before editing or posting (wikis, forums, blogs, spreadsheets, comments...)


Introduction. Why?
  • Improve quality of collaborative building of knowledge and associated learning
  • Improve quality of document written by students in group work (blended learning)
  • Promote Experiential-reflective learning (Kolb 1984)


Methodology: How?
  • 1h initial training in usage of platform (Tiki)
  • Regulated by teacher activities + self regulated students work without teachers
  • Individual and group tutorships
  • Assessing & grading students by the final product AND also by activities along the PROCESS


Methodology: Which contribution types?
  • List initially set by team of teachers
  • also "open" to student suggestions...
(the more "stars" in left column, the more weight in grading process)

I Contribution type Description
Others (report) Other contribution type not listed (report which one to teachers)
* Organizational aspects Proposals and other questions related to the organization of the work team, scheduling,....
* Improvements in markup Improvements in markup, spelling, etc. (bear in mind that final document quality for printing will be performed at the end
* Support requests Simple questions, help requests, without too much making of previous information
** Help partners Help group or course mates who asked questions, requested support, formulated doubts, etc. (group or course forum)
** New information New information has been added to text or discussion
*** New hypotheses New hypothesis has been prepared from preexisting information, and possibly, some new information (if so, mark it also)
*** Elaborated questions Elaborated questions and new ways to move forward in the work which they were not taken into account previously
*** Synthesis / making of information Synthesize or refine speech with preexisting information



Methodology: Contributions (Tiki)
Wiki edit example:


Methodology: Action log (Tiki)
  • information about contributions browsable by students (optional) and also editable by teachers.
    user | date | wiki action | wiki action type | object | category | +bytes | -bytes | Contribution (type) | edit button


Methodology: Criteria for grading individual contributions
(P = Process | FP = Final product)
(the more "stars", the more weight in grading process)

Criteria Estimation method %
Teamwork (P): Sum of sizes of all contribution types 15
Synthesis & clarity of information (P): Statement (corrected) of students, and sum of sizes of specific contribution type (“*** Synthesis / making of information”) 30
Quantity & quality of contributed information (a) (P): Statement (corrected) of students and sum of sizes of related contributions types ("** New Information", "*** New hypothesis", "*** Synthesis / making of information"), and (b) (FP): Revision by teachers of individual attribution statements of ea 40
Formal quality of work (a) (P): Statement of the students and specific contribution size and type ("* Improvements of presentation"), and (b) (FP): Arbitrary scoring by teachers to last work by editors-in-chief to final document prior to printing 15



Results: contributions in groups




Results: Individual contributions




Conclusions: Strengths
  • opportunities for self-regulation by students of their effort invested to develop the specific and cross competences
  • allows teachers to have quantitative data to characterize the contributions of each individual of a work group
  • means a substantial improvement with respect to traditional methodologies in the ability to evaluate student learning when teachers are not eyewitness of the activities
  • facilitates the personalized tutorship "at early stages", so each student can realize what aspects he/she has adequately developed, what other aspects have not been adequately developed (and remedy can be put in time)
  • allows teachers invest weekly less effort since the beginning (instead of a huge effort at the end) to supervise, validate or correct and feedback to student

Conclusions: Weaknesses
  • method does not appreciate the intrinsic quality of the edited text. Critical reading, validation and appraisal of students contributions by teachers is necessary
  • can be inadequate if it is used to promote "police control" of students actions. Its main potential is, instead:
    • serving data for tutorships with students along the process,
    • help detecting and reverting "early enough" whatever handicaps that prevented some students improving their contributions
  • could have some students who refuse to use it, if previous negative experience with Wikis.
    • in some cases: lack of adequate prior instruction about the best practices for using Wikis.
  • 2-3 times more investment of time by teachers is needed to evaluate student contributions (type and sums of sizes).

Acknowledgments and References

(presentation created "dogfooding" TikiWiki slideshow)



Contributors to this page: xavi1744 points  .
Page last modified on Wednesday 24 of October, 2007 19:25:26 CET by xavi1744 points .

Menu

Search

in:

Search Wiki PageName

Exact match

Site Language: English

Kindly hosted at:

ourproject.org Logo

Copyleft

Creative Commons License
Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Spain License.