Resources

An annotated bibliography of resources--

This study examines the use of a wiki for collaborative work on the literature review process by undergraduate social work students. Intended as a multiple-semester study, the researcher stopped after one semester due to the overwhelmingly negative response to the use of the wiki. Students who worked in face-to-face groups collaborated more and achieved at higher rates than those in the wiki group. Lack of student participation and motivation were difficulties that, according to the researcher, require more scaffolding and structure of the task and mandating certain levels of participation. **(Lori)**
 * Allwardt, D. (2011). Writing with wikis: A cautionary tale of technology in the classroom. //Journal of Social Work Education//, 47(3), 597-605).**

 Constructing democratic learning environments the wiki way. By: Bhattacharya, Kakali. THEN: Technology, Humanities, Education & Narrative. Winter2011, Issue 8, p38-64. 27p (Donna_ I will add my info as soon as I read the articles.)

This article is a comprehensive list of Web 2.0 tools for teachers new to the field of special education. It is a resource for obtaining information that is not otherwise readily available to new teachers.
 * Billingsley, B., ., (2011) Supporting new special education teachers. //,// 43(5), p20-29. **

This study examines graduate students' perceptions of an assignment requiring them to add to or edit an existing wikipedia page. The majority of the students (88%) reported that it was a positive experience, and 88% said they would incorporate wikis in their own classrooms. Positive experiences included learning more about wikipedia and posting work to an authentic audience. Some negative comments were expressed relating to being offended if others edited their additions to the wiki.
 * Bravo, V.J. (2011). The impact of a collaborative wikipedia assignment on teaching, learning, and student perceptions in a teacher education program. //Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37,// 1-24.**

This study of graduate students in secondary education sought to determine which tool best promoted collaboration for content knowledge. Their findings suggest that students were more likely to comment and engage with others on blogs, and that "blogs are more likely to help learners construct knowledge at a higher collaborative level" (p. 77). The findings also suggest that those who wish to use wikis must provide more structure and guidance to encourage student engagement. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: Social Constructivism--Interaction Analysis Model **(Lori)**
 * Cheng, G., & Chaue, J. (2011). A comparative study of using blogs and wikis for collaborative knowledge construction//. International Journal of Instructional Media,// 38(1), 71-78.**

In this study undergraduate students were asked to post to a class wiki. The findings did not support the use of wikis in the classroom. The students reported technical problems with the wiki itself and a lack of confidence in actually posting their own ideas. Another finding was that while students use technology for social purposes, they are not very willing to use the technology for the benefit of others. This article also presents a description of constructivist and collaborative learning.
 * Cole, M. (2009). Using wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. //Computers & Education, 52,// 141-146.**

This study outlines the use of wikis as a tool for collaboration and learning. The theoretical framework is presented from Luhmann and Piaget, stating that collaborative knowledge is built through the social and cognitive processes facilitated by wiki use, as well as how the two influence each other. This article features an analysis of the social and cognitive systems involved in wiki use.
 * Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systematic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. //Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning//, //3//(10), 105-122.**

Seven Ph.D. students used a wiki to prepare for their qualifying exams. Students posted information on a variety of topics that would be covered on the exam. All of the students agreed that the process of developing the wiki was helpful to them. The bond between them was also strengthened, and a friendly attitude of competition motivated students to do their best work.
 * DiPietro, J. C., Drexler, W., Kennedy, K., Buraphadeja, V., Liu, F., & Dawson, K. (2010). Using wikis to collaboratively prepare for qualifying exams: An example of implementation in an advanced graduate degree. //TechTrends, 54,// 25-32.**

 Wiki or Word? Evaluating Tools for Collaborative Writing and Editing. By: Dishaw, Mark; Eierman, Michael A.; Iversen, Jakob H.; Philip, George C. Journal of Information Systems Education.Spring2011, Vol. 22 Issue 1, p43-54. 12p.- Donna

This article begins with an excellent description of collaborative learning, which is essential for wikis to be truly effective. In the study two groups of college students, one traditional and one that is offered both traditionally and online were required to work in groups to develop a wiki. The results showed that wikis are not effective as a communication tool, although 67% of the students thought that the wiki was a good instrument for collecting and organizing knowledge and as a way to present their findings, although not at a face to face meeting. The students also stated that the wiki was easy to use. Online students did report, however, that it was not a good way to develop relationships. The wikis also showed that while the students did synthesize and apply knowledge, they did not evaluate it.
 * Elgort, I., Smith, A.G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki and effective platform for group course work? //Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24,// 195-210.**

Gibbons recounts his use of wikis for high school language arts classes. Using control groups that worked face to face and experiemental groups using wikis, he found that students were more likely to read each others' writing, comment extensively, and make revisions; in addition, students were more engaged in discussions of literature. One of the factors that likely contributed to the high level of student engagement was that all work on the wikis was done during the class period in the computer lab, so the intructor could offer guidance and support, as well as keep students on track and working. **(Lori)**
 * Gibbons, S. (2010). Collaborating like never before: Reading and writing through a wiki. //English Journal,// 99(5), 35-39.**

This study compares two uses of wikis in two different courses, as well as student perceptions of the wiki experience. In one course, students used a wiki to contsruct an online course content glossary, and in the other course, students used the wiki to work on project assignments. Those contructing the glossary used the wiki in a less collaborative way but found it fairly effective. The students using it for projects found it less effective and more frustrating than the other group, perhpaps due to technological issues. The researchers concluded that wikis can be useful for tasks that do not require a high degree of collaboration. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: Social-constructivist **(Lori)**
 * Hughes. J., & Narayan, R. Collaboration and learning with wikis in post-secondary classrooms. //Journal of Interactive Online Learning,// 8(1), 63-82.**

This article addresses a learning-by-design approach to teaching educators to use web 2.0 technology. The problem is that technology is advancing faster than teachers can be trained to implement it. Therefore it is necessary for colleges and universities to insure pre-service teachers are immersed in the technology available. This immersion increased the use of technology in the teacher’s classrooms.
 * Hur, J. (2011). Creating an engaging learning environment with web 2.0 technology. //Journal of Technology Integration in the classroom. 3(1), p. 5-16.// **

This article reports the findings of a case study of university students enrolled in introductory-level Spanish who used a wiki for writing and peer revision. Researchers found that students collaborated more as time went on, and they were more comfortable with adding content than with editing someone else's work. Although the students liked the open-ended, self-directed nature of the wiki, they also suggested that specific guidelines from the instructor concerning peer editing would be appreciated. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: Social-Constructivist **(Lori)**
 * Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. //CALICO Journal,// 27(2), 260-276.**

This article seeks to "provide guidance for instructors who choose to assign wikis to students" (p. 49). Instructors must consider issues of cost, complexity, control, clarity, and features when choosing a wiki framework and must be prepared to make adjustments and provide feedback as students use the technology. ( **Lori)**
 * Malaga, R. (2010). Choosing a wiki platform for student projects--lessons learned. //Contemporary Issues in Education Research,// 3(2), 49-54.**

This comparative study examines the potential for blending wikis with curriculum activities to aid students in collaboration, student expectations and perceptions of the collaborative tasks, and obstacles to collaborative success. While students had generally positive attitudes toward group work and perceived the collaborative experience as enjoyable, most of the posting and organizing was done by one or two students, with others contributing, but very little editing of each others' work or collaboration through the wiki. Students preferred to use email and face-to-face interaction to collaborate and had difficulty negotiating collaborative responsibilities. **(Lori)**
 * Naismith, L., Lee, B., & Pilington, R. (2011). Collaborative learning with a wiki: Differences in perceived usefulness in two contexts of use. //Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,// 27, 228-242.**

 Creating/Developing/Using a Wiki Study Guide: Effects on Student Achievement. By: O'Bannon, Blanche W.; Britt, Virginia G. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Summer2012, Vol. 44 Issue 4, p293-312. 20p. Donna

 A Technological Reinvention of the Textbook: A Wikibooks Project. By: O'Shea, Patrick M.; Onderdonk, James C.; Allen, Douglas; Allen, Dwight W. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education.Mar2011, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p109-114. 6p. (Donna - I will add, just wanted to secure my articles before I read them.)

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">This article uses a social framework for teaching via web 2.0 technologies. Students indicate that technology allows them the freedom to communicate with their peers. There is no more waiting your turn to speak, you “speak” via blog. This practice gives everyone a turn to be heard, and encourages more in depth conversations. The gaps and concerns were lack of teacher training.
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Taranto, G., Dalbon, M., Gaetano, J., (2011). Academic social networking brings web 2.0 technologies to the middle grades. //Middle School Journal.// 42(5), p. 12-19. **

This study examined the use of and students' attitudes towards wikis with undergraduate students in teacher training. Several areas of concern were noted; for instance, some students were uncomfortable with the technology or disliked the lack of imposed structure. The issues of ownership and intellectual property were also of serious concern to many students, who feel protective of their own work and ideas. Student engagement in their own contributions was great, but students tended not to read others' pages. Benefits included student awareness of audience and a desire to write well and accurately. Suggestions include using class time to work on wikis and frank discussions of the need to give up intellectual property rights in group collaboration. **(Lori)**
 * Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad, and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. //British Journal of Educational Technology,// 39(6), 987-995.**