Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool in a Language Arts Methods

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

JRTE, 421, 5172

Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

in a Language Arts Methods Class

Kathryn I. Matthew

Emese Felvegi

University of Houston—Clear Lake

Rebecca A. Callaway

Arkansas Tech University

Abstract

e purpose of this study was to determine how contributing to a class wiki aﬀected the learning of pre-

service teachers enrolled in a language arts methods class. Participants included 37 preservice teachers

enrolled in three sections of a ﬁeld-based language arts methods class during two semesters. Data col-

lection included online observations of the development of the wiki pages, students’ reﬂections period-

ically posted in WebCT, ﬁnal reﬂections, e-mail correspondence, interview transcripts, and researcher

notes. Students’ reﬂections indicate that contributing to the class wiki led to a deeper processing of

the course content and was personally beneﬁcial to the students in spite of persistent technology chal-

lenges. (Keywords: collaborative learning, preservice teachers, technology integration, Web 2.0, wiki)

INTRODUCTION

Wikis are collaborative Web-based environments that allow multiple users to

easily and quickly contribute content. ey are dynamic, constantly changing

Web pages where readers become authors and editors. Wikis are a Web 2.0 ap-

plication, which allow for “distributed participation and collaboration” (Knobel

& Lankshear, 2006, p. 81). ese applications allow users to upload, build, and

create content on the Web (omas, 2008). Web 2.0 reshapes the Web into

global communities that anyone can join and where everyone can contribute

(Parker & Chao, 2007; Tapscott & Williams, 2008). Members of these global

communities collaborate as they create knowledge rather than just take in

knowledge (Farabaugh, 2007; Mitchell, 2003). Extending these global com-

munities into the classroom requires students to take responsibility for creating

shared knowledge with their classmates.

Collaborative Learning and Wikis

Wikis harness a group’s collaborative, creative energy to produce shared

knowledge that beneﬁts everyone (Evans, 2006) with at times unexpected

results (Wells, 1999). In a collaborative online community, each student’s ideas

and knowledge are available and are a resource for everyone in the class (Hewitt

& Scardamalia, 1998). “e posting and pooling of ideas generate sparks of

creativity as others react, reﬂect, have their insights deepened or changed and,

in turn, contribute something new” (Dearstyne, 2007, p. 30). As students com-

bine their research, analyze it, and come to common understandings, a synergy

develops (Achterman, 2006). Students discover that their collective answer

is better than their individual answers (Evans) and that, as they produce new

52 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

knowledge, they are advancing the collective knowledge of the group (Grant,

2006). Working together, students generate online materials that reﬂect what

they have learned and show connections between their prior knowledge, the

course content, and their personal experiences. During the collaborative work

of creating a wiki, the community of users develops trust and gets to know one

another (Evans). Collectively the users take ownership in the project, take pride

in their work, and develop an appreciation of the contributions of the other

users.

Eﬀective Learning through Wikis

In classrooms, students may not have time to read and build on each other’s

work; however, in collaborative online environments, they are given this op-

portunity (Hewitt & Scardamalia, 1998). Research, discussions, and reﬂections

started in the classroom can continue online. Reading and reﬂecting on course

content outside the classroom increases students’ understanding and retention

(Ball & Washburn, 2001). As they contribute to a wiki, students are creating

course resources and building course content in a shared space where they can

add, delete, and revise their writing (Engstrom & Jewett, 2005; Evans, 2006;

McPherson, 2006; Parker & Chao, 2007). Further, as students write their

course content, they learn the material better than if they only read the text-

book (Evans). Students do need to be reminded of copyright laws that prohibit

copying and pasting content from other Web sites and the importance of giving

credit for others’ work (Belle, 2003). Also, students need to understand that the

collaboratively created text is owned by all of the contributors (Botterbusch &

Parker, 2008), and even though their writing is published once it appears on the

wiki, it can still undergo revisions as others react and respond to the writing and

make changes (Locke, 2006).

Giving students autonomy with regard to the scope and content of the wiki

results in a better wiki (Richardson, 2006). However, students do need an orga-

nizational structure for the wiki (Engstrom & Jewett, 2005; Evans, 2006). Once

the structure is provided, professors become moderators of the wiki rather than

supervisors (Farabaugh, 2007; Mitchell, 2003; Wheeler, Yeomans, & Wheeler,

2008). To assist in moderating the wiki, professors can elect to receive e-mails

every time the wiki content is edited. ey can track these e-mail messages to

conﬁrm that all of the students are participating, to determine if students are

editing existing content or adding new content, and to determine how much

content individual students are contributing. Disproportionately low contribu-

tions by some students is referred to as social loaﬁng; however, students who are

logging in to the wiki and lurking rather than contributing may still be learning

(Wheeler et al.). Autonomy and a clear organizational structure allow students

to take ownership of the wiki and contribute personally meaningful content.

Technology Concerns

Users share control of the ﬂexible wiki environment, which fosters the de-

velopment of collaborative online projects (Engstrom & Jewett, 2005; Jakes,

2006; Robinson, 2006). Wiki software enables users to easily and quickly edit

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Web pages using their Web browser; they do not need any specialized technical

knowledge. e wiki software’s editing and graphics tools are basic compared to

today’s complex and ambitious desktop publishing tools. Settings and prefer-

ences are limited; at times what is displayed when editing the page is not the

same as what is displayed once the page edits are saved. For example, uniform

indentations and line spaces may not be uniform once the page is saved. Al-

though the wiki software is easy to use, students with older equipment, those

who do not have easy access to the Internet, or those whose only computer ac-

cess is on campus ﬁnd that contributing to the wiki is burdensome (Farabaugh,

2007).

Editing the wiki pages can be open to the public or limited to a select group

of users with a password, although only one user at a time can edit a page. As

users contribute to the pages, unintentional edits, such as accidentally deleting

others’ words, occur, and inaccuracies appear. Just as contributors collaborate to

add to the pages, they collaborate to reconstruct and correct them (Bold, 2006).

Also, wikis track the revisions made to the pages and allow users to revert to

previous versions (Robinson, 2006). Users can track and compare additions, de-

letions, and changes to the pages. Tracking changes in the wiki pages over time

provides insight into students’ collaborations, reﬂections, and learning.

To prepare preservice teachers to use Web 2.0 applications in their future

classrooms, they need opportunities to learn to use the applications and op-

portunities to use the applications as they learn (Mitchell, 2003; Oliver, 2007;

Wassell & Crouch, 2008). Luce-Kapler (2007) calls for teaching that engages

students in the processes of learning content while learning new technologies,

such as wikis. Further, Mitchell (2003) sees the need for additional research that

examines ways preservice teachers can use technology for learning and critique

the technology as they use it. Carr, Morrison, Cox, and Deacon (2007), Evans

(2006), and Grant (2006) note the need for additional research focusing on

the uses of wikis in education, particularly when instructors assign and assess

speciﬁc collaborative tasks.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

To integrate technology into preservice teacher training, the professor asked

preservice teachers to create a class wiki and to learn how to use the technology

as they learned the course content. is study examines how preservice teachers’

contributions to a class wiki situated their learning in a context that facilitated

their understanding and learning of the course content. is section deﬁnes

situated cognition, constructivism, and communities of practice. It seeks to

explain how participating in the wiki enabled students to construct their own

knowledge as they participated in a community of practice. Additionally, it con-

nects these theories with previous research on the beneﬁts of wikis.

Situated Cognition

Situated cognition recognizes that social and physical contexts are integral

components of learning (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Hur & Brush,

2009). For learners to fully understand concepts, they must learn and use them

54 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

in the social and physical contexts in which they are embedded (Brown et al.).

Situating the learning in context ensures that the learning is memorable and

can be transferred to other activities. Further, Brown et al. contend that when

learners work in groups to solve problems and negotiate understanding, the

cognitive burden is distributed throughout the environment. us, “… situ-

ated cognition implies that the activities of person and environment are parts

of a mutually constructed whole” (Hung & Der-ang, 2001, p. 4). Students’

collaborative contributions to the wiki demonstrate to them that their collec-

tive knowledge is greater than their individual knowledge, and that by working

together they are creating new knowledge (Evans, 2006; Grant, 2006).

Constructivism

Constructivism holds that learners actively construct knowledge by interpret-

ing new knowledge based on their prior knowledge (Kuiper & Volman, 2008).

Constructivist approaches to learning provide students with opportunities to

participate in authentic activities that require them to interact with their envi-

ronment and create their own understanding (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998).

Constructivist teaching moves students beyond just the accumulation of knowl-

edge; it involves them in critically thinking, reﬂecting, and using the knowledge

(Tynjal, 1998). In constructivist classrooms, students have opportunities to

learn through social, collaborative activities that occur in a meaningful context

and allow them to make connections between their prior experiences and their

new experiences (Willis, Stephens, & Matthew, 1996). In these learner-centered

classrooms, teachers take on the role of facilitators who guide students as they

explore their environment and construct their own knowledge. Just as teachers

are facilitators in their classrooms, they also become facilitators of the wiki to al-

low students to create their own knowledge (Farabaugh, 2007; Mitchell, 2003;

Wheeler et al., 2008). Socioconstructivist theories hold that learning is socially

constructed by “competent participation in the discourse, norms, and practices

associated with particular communities of practice” (Kuiper & Volman, 2008,

p. 244).

Communities of Practice

As students create and share knowledge in the wiki environment, they partici-

pate in communities of practice where the process and the product are equally

important (Carr et al, 2007). In communities of practice, learners collaborate

as they pursue a common goal (Wenger, 1997). Commitment to a common

goal enables members of the communities to work together and to learn from

each other as they acquire a shared understanding (Wenger). With Web-based

systems, these communities of practice are not constrained by classroom walls

and can be situated in various learning contexts (Hung & Der-ang, 2001).

Palmer (1997) suggests that teachers form learning communities around the

subject they are teaching by presenting students with critical data to examine

and the space in which to examine the data. Wikis are one example of a shared

space where students come together as communities of learners to examine a

subject. Community members create and share knowledge as they generate

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

content for the wiki pages (Wheeler et al., 2008); hence, the wiki becomes an

online repository of shared knowledge (Sheehy, 2008).

To summarize, wikis have the potential to enhance students’ learning because

wikis situate learning in an authentic context, ensuring that the learning is both

memorable and transferable. Wikis provide students with spaces in which to

construct their own knowledge within a community of learners who share com-

mon goals.

Purpose of the Study

e review of literature explains how wikis situate learning as they facili-

tate students’ knowledge construction while participating in a community of

practice. Wikis have the potential to provide structure and support for students

as they collaborate, create, and learn from one another; hence, there is a need

for ongoing research on the inclusion of wikis in classrooms (Grant, 2006).

Consequently, this study is part of an ongoing research project to determine

the potential of a class wiki to enhance preservice teachers’ learning of course

content. e following research questions guided this study:

How did contributing to a class wiki aﬀect students’ learning of the 1.

course content?

What were students’ perceptions of contributing to a class wiki?2.

What technology concerns arose when using a wiki?3.

METHOD

e researchers used case-study methodology to examine the beneﬁts and

challenges of contributing to a wiki in a language arts methods class. According

to Bogdan and Biklen (1998), a case study is a “detailed examination of one

setting or a single subject, a single depository of documents, or one particular

event” (p. 54). A case study is situated in authentic contexts that provide insight

into complex events and environments. e researchers selected case-study

methodology for this study, as the wiki was situated in an authentic learning

environment involving complex events.

Participants and Procedure

e 37 participants were preservice teachers enrolled in three language arts

methods classes taught by the ﬁrst author. Two sections of the class were taught

in a spring semester, and one section was taught the following fall semester. e

majority of the students (35) were undergraduates; however, two were gradu-

ate students. ese classes were ﬁeld-based at an elementary school in southeast

Houston. Demographic information is routinely collected at the beginning of

ﬁeld-based classes, and students are asked to self-identify their gender and eth-

nicity. ere were 3 male students and 34 female students. Ethnic backgrounds

included 20 Caucasians, 14 Hispanics or Latinos, one Asian, one Asian-

American, and one African-American. To assist in gathering data for this study,

students were asked to indicate the year they were born; participants ranged in

age from 20 to 47 years of age.

56 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

Participation in the wiki was a class requirement, and students’ contributions

to the wiki were part of the course assessment. However, students were given

the option of not having their reﬂections included in the study. Students were

asked to sign consent forms if they agreed to have their reﬂections included in

the study. e consent forms were placed in a sealed envelope that was given

to the professor’s secretary, and professor did not open the envelope until after

submitting the grades for the course.

As part of the course requirements, students added course content to a class

wiki housed on PeanutButter Wiki at http://llls4434.pbwiki.com. e wiki

consisted of 40 pages, including an introductory front page, a table of contents

page, 11 pages covering course content, and a 26-page dictionary. e course

content pages include (a) oral language, (b) phonological and phonemic aware-

ness, (c) alphabetic principal, (d) literacy development and practice, (e) word

analysis and decoding, (f) reading ﬂuency, (g) reading comprehension, (h)

development of written communication, (i) writing conventions, (j) assessment

and instruction of developing literacy, and (k) viewing and representing. ese

page headings align with the Texas English Language Arts and Reading Educa-

tor Standards (SBEC, 2002) and the National Council of Teachers of English/

International Reading Association Standards for the English Language Arts

(NCTE/IRA, 1996), which serve as a framework for the course content. Each

wiki page contained a sidebar with links to the other pages to facilitate naviga-

tion through the site.

Prior to the ﬁrst class meeting, the professor e-mailed preservice teachers

an invitation to visit the wiki and provided the password for logging into the

wiki. During the ﬁrst class meeting, the professor explained the project to the

students and introduced the wiki as an easily accessible online environment for

them to create a shared knowledge of the course content. Additionally, although

the professor received e-mails when students made edits and periodically

reviewed the wiki pages, she did not make edits to the pages or oﬀer comments

on the pages. e professor’s stance as an observer ensured that the students had

autonomy regarding the content of the wiki.

ese classes met at a local elementary school where district policy prevented

the class from having Internet access during the spring semester. By the fall

semester, Internet access was granted; however, the district’s Internet blocking

software did not allow access to the wiki. Hence, the introduction to the wiki

consisted of screen shots of the pages in a PowerPoint presentation. e profes-

sor gave students a handout with screenshots and step-by-step instructions for

adding a deﬁnition to the dictionary pages of the wiki. is introductory as-

signment was designed to give them practice in adding content to the wiki and

to help them overcome any anxiety they might have about contributing to the

wiki. e professor had sent invitations to join the wiki to the students through

their university e-mail accounts, which some students do not check on a regular

basis. After the introduction, the professor collected students’ preferred e-mail

addresses and sent invitations to those e-mail accounts.

e preservice teachers formed groups with two or three members, and

then each group selected a wiki page that they would monitor throughout the

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

semester. Each group’s responsibilities included deleting inappropriate or inac-

curate content, adding links to Web pages related to the topic, adding links to

other wiki pages, adding dictionary entries that pertained to their wiki page,

and formatting the page. During the last week of class, each group was respon-

sible for making ﬁnal additions and edits to their wiki page.

roughout the semester, the preservice teachers were required to add course

content to the wiki pages. e course syllabus indicated which assigned read-

ings corresponded to each wiki page. After reading the assigned textbook pages,

discussing the course content, completing in-class activities, and tutoring el-

ementary students at their ﬁeld-based placement, the preservice teachers were to

share what they learned with their classmates by contributing to the class wiki.

ese contributions could be in the form of adding content to already existing

pages or adding new pages to the wiki. Students were told that postings might

include summaries of what they read in the textbook, connections between

their textbooks and their personal experiences of learning to read and to write,

questions about teaching reading and language arts, connections between their

ﬁeld experiences and the course content, and connections between their profes-

sional development activities and the course content. e professor established

three checkpoints during the semester at which time she required students to

post about their wiki use in their personal folders in WebCT course manage-

ment software. ese posts included brief descriptions of their edits and addi-

tions to the wiki pages, as well as a reﬂection on their experiences contributing

to the wiki. Students also used WebCT to record their ﬁeld-based experience

journals and e-mail communication, and the professor used it to post class

handouts and resources.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection included online observations of the development of the wiki

pages, students’ reﬂections periodically posted in WebCT, ﬁnal reﬂections,

e-mail correspondence, interview transcripts, and researcher notes. At the end

of the ﬁrst semester, the researchers randomly selected ﬁve students to partici-

pate in interviews about their experiences contributing to the wiki pages. e

researchers designed the interview questions to elicit additional comments from

the students regarding their participation in the wiki and to conﬁrm informa-

tion found in the reﬂections. Interview questions are included at the end of the

article (see Appendix, p. 71).

e second author, a graduate research assistant, conducted the interviews.

e researchers analyzed the data using the constant comparative method

(Glasser & Strauss, 1967). Relationships identiﬁed through analysis of initial

observations and discussions were continually reﬁned through the data col-

lection and analysis process, and then continuously fed back into the process

of category coding. Categories began to emerge through constant comparison

of episodes (Merriam, 1988). NVivo 8 software facilitated data analysis. e

researchers transcribed and entered the interviews into NVivo, along with

all digitally recorded data sources. e researchers independently read stu-

dent reﬂections and interview transcripts, then separately noted 23 emergent

58 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

subcategories across the data from 338 data sources containing 562 references.

NVivo calculated interrater reliability (Kappa coeﬃcient) based on the percent-

age agreement of the coding queries performed by the two coders, the ﬁrst

and second authors. Interrater reliability was .88; coding discrepancies resulted

from diﬀerences in the lengths of the strings marked in NVivo. e researchers

discussed and resolved all discrepancies.

RESULTS

e data analysis revealed themes and categories that addressed the original

research questions:

How did contributing to a class wiki aﬀect students’ learning of the 1.

course content?

What were students’ perceptions of contributing to a class wiki? 2.

What technology concerns arose when using a wiki? 3.

e impact on students’ learning was evidenced by their reﬂections on the

beneﬁts of reading and rereading the wiki pages and by the connections they

made between their prior knowledge, prior experiences, and new learning. Re-

garding students’ perceptions of the wiki, they noted that it was personally use-

ful, they established ownership of the wiki, and they could foresee ways to use

the wiki. Initial technology concerns and problems lessened as students grew ac-

customed to using the wiki software; however, technology concerns remained. A

detailed analysis of the results follows, including information on lessons learned

from the students’ suggestions regarding changes in the wiki assignment.

Impact on Students’ Learning

As students contributed to the wiki pages, their reﬂections on the process and

their interview comments revealed that they spent time reading and rereading

the pages. As they researched content to add to the pages, they made connec-

tions to their prior knowledge and experiences, to the content they were learn-

ing in other classes, to their tutoring sessions with elementary students, and to a

variety of Internet resources.

Reading and rereading. Unlike individual writing assignments, posting to

the wiki pages required students to be cognizant of their peers’ contributions.

Students’ online reﬂections and interview comments indicated that they were

continually reading and rereading their classmates’ postings in order to add new

and relevant information while avoiding redundancy, knowing that the content,

quality, and the usefulness of the wiki was in their control. As one commented,

“So as not to post duplicate information on each wiki page, I was forced to read

through each and every bit of information on a page before researching and

posting to it.” Some students noted that, as the semester progressed and the

wiki pages grew longer, there was more material to read through. is meant

that, to avoid reposting information already on the pages, the students invested

more time and eﬀort in learning and researching the course content to ﬁnd new

material to post. One student noted that this was a good thing: “I like these

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

later postings, as I had to read every posting again to make sure nothing is du-

plicated.” ese reﬂections about rereading to avoid duplicating information on

the wiki also indicate students’ ownership of the wiki and their concern about

the content on the pages. Continually reading and rereading the wiki pages led

to a deeper understanding of the course content and enhanced retention of the

material.

Reading and rereading the wiki pages resulted in students building on each

others’ work, as one student reﬂected: “Someone had already named some good

strategies to improve reading comprehension. I found some more in the text-

book, so I listed them underneath.” In this instance, she just contributed to the

already created list and did not extend the material. In another post, she noted,

“Someone had already given a good example of how oral language develops, so I

found some fun activities on the Internet that help develop oral language.” She

advanced the group’s collective knowledge by adding activities to teach the skill,

which provided her classmates with a way to apply this knowledge in teaching

situations. us, the information posed by one student served as a foundation

for another student to build on and to enhance the collective knowledge of the

community of learners.

Not only were students reading and rereading the wiki pages, they also re-

ported careful reading of the course textbooks. eir quests for relevant material

to contribute to the wiki led them to read and reﬂect on the content in their

textbooks. As one student wrote, “I enjoyed this assignment because it forced

me to jump into the textbook in a way that I would not have done on my own

time.” Another student reﬂected, “… I was forced to reread some information

in the textbooks and really think about ways to elaborate on what was read.”

e word forced appeared in reﬂections and interview transcripts, indicating

that, had it not been for the required wiki assignment, the students would have

spent less time reading and studying their textbooks. Hence, contributing to the

wiki required students to carefully read their textbooks and to synthesize what

they learned. e careful reading and synthesis of the reading led one student

to note, “It gave me a much better understanding of what it was I was read-

ing versus just going through the motions of having to read the chapters.” is

careful reading of the textbooks persisted throughout the semester, as evidenced

by this comment: “On the last post I really focused on content and dug into the

textbook and found a lot of information.” As students read, they compared and

contrasted the information in their textbooks and on the wiki pages to ensure

that they understood the material in order to add meaningful content to the

wiki. is comparing and contrasting of information from diﬀerent sources “…

gives me a better understanding of the material and embeds it into my memo-

ry,” wrote one student.

Connections. In 39% of the sources, almost one fourth (23.6%) of all coded

references note or reﬂect on the types of connections the students made while

taking the class: activities outside the conﬁnes of this course, their own teach-

ing practice, materials found online, and textbooks from this course as well as

from other courses. In their searches for content for the wiki pages, students

looked for connections within the materials posted on the wiki pages, as well

60 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

as across textbooks, online information, class discussions, class activities, their

tutoring sessions with elementary students, and other classes in their teacher

preparation program. Approximately 10% of the sources reference textbooks

used in classes, and more than 50% of the textbook comments and reﬂections

referenced textbooks from other classes. e students were clearly reaching

beyond the conﬁnes of their assigned materials and making connections with

what they were studying in other classes. As they learned the course content,

they were building on their prior knowledge to aid them in understanding their

new knowledge. Or as one student noted, “I could actually relate what I already

knew and maybe even things I didn’t realize I knew and put them in context.”

During an interview, one student mentioned her eﬀorts to ﬁnd new informa-

tion to add to the wiki pages. She reported using her previous textbooks and

Internet searches to ﬁnd information her classmates might not ﬁnd. Wanting to

ﬁnd information that others had not found, and needing to ﬁnd information

not contained in the textbooks, led students to Internet searches. For example,

writing conventions was the focus of a standard and the title of a wiki page;

however, the course textbooks did not deﬁne that term. To contribute to that

page, a student did an Internet search and then added the deﬁnition of the term

to the wiki. She wrote, “I provided the information of what a writing conven-

tion is. I could not ﬁnd anything about it in the text, so I found a good deﬁni-

tion online.”

Internet searches revealed not only new information and deﬁnitions, they also

enabled the preservice teachers to ﬁnd activities for teaching students. One suc-

cessful Internet search prompted this reﬂection: “I was really excited to ﬁnd so

many activities you do to help students that are struggling with speciﬁc reading

and writing techniques.” Many added external links to Web pages with descrip-

tions of what could be found on them. Some added content from the Web sites

and included a link to the Web site as a citation.

Weekly tutoring sessions with students in the elementary school where the

class is ﬁeld-based began during the ﬁfth week of class. ese sessions give the

preservice teachers opportunities to immediately apply the information they

are learning in the course. Encounters with struggling elementary students led

the preservice teachers to the wiki to search for ways to help the students. After

ﬁnding ideas on the wiki, a student posted, “I was really excited to ﬁnd so many

activities you could do to help students that are struggling with speciﬁc reading

and writing techniques.” e wiki pages became a resource for their tutoring

sessions, as evidenced in this comment: “I like how each wiki page gives activi-

ties to use when teaching; this is a very useful tool and resource.” Preservice

teachers typically enroll in more than one ﬁeld-based class each semester and

tutor students in each of these classes. One preservice teacher noted how the

wiki helped her prepare for tutoring in another ﬁeld-based class: “I enjoyed this

activity because I am currently working with a second grade student for another

class, and he has been held back once and is struggling again this year. I looked

up areas I know that he is weak in so that I could not only complete the wiki

assignment but also gain insight on how I can help him develop stronger skills.”

Being able to use the wiki in more than one class showed the students how

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

their courses build on one another and that their courses provide them with the

knowledge and skills they can use in diﬀerent teaching situations. e practical

application of the information from the wiki pages to their tutoring reinforced

that contributing to the wiki page was beneﬁcial.

Contributing to the wiki reinforced classroom activities and extended class-

room discussions. For example, one student reﬂected, “We had gone over these

strategies in class so I found them and put them on as a reminder. I also liked

the hint that gave an idea for teachers to go back and assess each time they are

with the child and follow their progress.” She reinforced the course content by

adding it to the wiki and extended the course content by including the idea on

how to assess students in order to chart their progress.

Wiki postings were also an opportunity to explore answers to questions

students posed, as evidenced by this reﬂection: “During the class I heard several

students wondering why it was we were asked to write daily for 30 minutes

on a topic of our choice, so on Standard IX [writing conventions], I added the

answer to their question.” Although this was not part of the conversation, this

student saw the wiki as an opportunity to add to the collective knowledge of the

group by reminding them why 30 minutes of writing was required during each

class period. Working together as a community of learners ensured that students

recognized that they were all responsible for the learning of all the members.

Preservice teachers’ contributions to the wiki pages indicated that they made

connections between courses in their degree program, professional development

sessions, tutoring sessions, outside readings, and Internet research. Making

these connections resulted in this comment: “It’s amazing how each of us come

up with very helpful and interesting ideas on the same subject.” Students came

to recognize that their classmates had unique knowledge and that, when they

collaborated on the wiki, the collective knowledge of the group became a valu-

able resource for them all. As students added to the wiki pages, they extended

their learning in this course as well as their learning in other courses by making

connections between the courses. A student recognized this beneﬁt when she

wrote, “I think that the wiki pages will be very useful for studying for all of my

classes because a lot of the same information is covered in my other classes.”

Making connections reinforced students’ learning and made it memorable,

thereby enhancing retention of the material and their ability to use the informa-

tion in a variety of teaching contexts.

Assignments in other courses also led students to make connections between

their classes. A special education class assignment provided a student with infor-

mation to contribute to the wiki. She wrote, “In another class of mine we were

assigned a disability and through my research for that topic, I stumbled across

some, what I thought was, valuable information for language arts teachers as

well.” is is another example of how the students worked to ﬁnd information

for the wiki that they did not think their classmates would come across on their

own as they worked to add to the groups’ collective knowledge. Connections

to other classes also resulted in students revisiting prior learning and gaining

a deeper understanding of their prior learning. As one student noted, “ese

wiki pages provide an opportunity for me to research terms that I have heard

62 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

in some classes but never really used.” e student recognized that the knowl-

edge she had of these terms was inert, and contributing to the wiki provided

an opportunity to make the words a meaningful part of her knowledge base by

situating them in her current learning environment.

Students’ Perceptions of the Wiki

Almost one fourth of all references (132) included preservice teachers’ feelings

about the wiki, possible future uses of the wiki in the students’ own practice,

or the extent they felt the wiki was beneﬁcial for their learning course content.

Although the students noted that contributing to the wiki required a great deal

of time, they also determined that it was worthwhile. During the course of the

semester, the students’ comments indicated that the wiki had become person-

ally useful to them, that they assumed ownership of the wiki, and that they

discovered future uses for the wiki. eir original perceptions of the wiki were

that it was just another class assignment to be completed for a grade. is initial

skepticism changed as they came to realize that the wiki was actually a very use-

ful tool and was beneﬁcial to their learning and their future teaching.

Personally useful. Contributing to the wiki pages required students to spend a

great deal of time reading, researching, synthesizing, and adding content to the

wiki pages. As one student reﬂected, “It was a challenge because you are looking

for information and at the same time learning as you research.” Writing content

for the wiki pages required that students ﬁrst understand the content. Develop-

ing this understanding was not easy, as students had to make connections be-

tween their previous knowledge and experiences and their new knowledge and

experiences. As they read and researched, they synthesized what they learned,

applied their learning in their tutoring sessions, and shared their learning with

their classmates by contributing to the wiki. ey learned that the group’s col-

lective knowledge was greater than their own, and that they could learn from

each other as noted in this reﬂection: “When you collaborate with your peers,

I feel that it is easier to come to a conclusion or express an idea.” What at ﬁrst

was just another class assignment to complete for a grade became a valuable

learning experience. For example, one student noted, “At ﬁrst it seemed like a

waste of time and just another way to keep us involved in busy work, but I have

learned so much from it.” is sentiment was echoed in another student’s ﬁnal

reﬂection:

I have learned so much from doing this assignment this semester. I

think you learn more than you realize just by researching each topic.

ese standards we are contributing [to] are very important, and it’s

nice to understand them now because honestly in the beginning it was

just a bunch of words to me.

is “bunch of words” was personally meaningful, and the knowledge the

student gained was knowledge that she would retain and use.

Students reﬂected on speciﬁc personal uses for the wiki, with 13.1% (44) of

the sources and 13.5% (76) of all references mentioning or reﬂecting on the

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

possibility of incorporating wikis into their work. One student commented,

“Our wiki pages are actually going to help me get through my internship this

semester!” She was using the materials on the wiki to plan her lessons during

her internship or ﬁrst semester of student teaching. Individual students reported

on ways they beneﬁted from the groups’ collaborative eﬀorts. For example one

student noted, “e part about the wiki pages that I found to be most useful

was the dictionary. If I needed help with anything instead of looking it up in

the book I just pulled up the wiki pages.” Adding to the dictionary became

more than an introductory assignment to the wiki pages. Another student

reported in her reﬂections that she searched the wiki pages for words and deﬁni-

tions that she thought should be in the dictionary and added them. Another

student also reported evidence of the dictionary’s usefulness when she added to

it as she encountered unfamiliar words while reading her textbook. e wiki

became an integral part of their learning environment.

Just as the preservice teachers discovered ways to use the wiki pages to help

them as students, they also discovered ways the wiki could help them as parents.

Four students commented that resources on the wiki helped them teach their

own children to read and to write. In a reﬂection, one mother posted that

she found an activity on the wiki for motivating reluctant readers. As she was

struggling to ﬁnd ways to motivate her daughter to read, she decided to try out

the activity. Armed with a blanket, some carefully selected picture books, and

snacks, she invited her children to go outside to read and to snack. Her reluc-

tant reader was soon reading and snacking. Students’ ability to ﬁnd personally

meaningful content on the wiki that they could use to help themselves and to

help their children contributed to the sense of ownership of the wiki.

Wiki ownership. As contributing to the wiki was a course assignment and

students were assessed on their contributions, it was not surprising that 43% of

all the posts (146) mentioned the edits made to the wiki pages and 47% of all

references (267) discussed the types of changes the students made on the wiki

site. ese edits and changes reﬂect the care and eﬀort that students put into

the creation of the wiki pages. Giving the students autonomy on the scope and

the content of the wiki facilitated their assumption of ownership. Knowing that

the content and ultimately the quality and the usefulness of the wiki depended

on them, students took ownership of the wiki as evidenced by comments such

as: “e pages are interesting and it is fun to make something that is our own.”

Students recognized that, not only was the wiki theirs, but it was important: “I

liked adding to the wiki pages because I felt like I had ownership over some-

thing important.” Students realized that the wiki was not an assignment to be

completed, turned into the teacher, and never seen nor used again. is was an

assignment that resulted in something valuable that they and other students

would continue to use. ey knew that the wiki was going to be there for them

in the future and that each semester, new groups of students would be contrib-

uting content. As one reﬂected, “When you work hard on something and col-

laborate with others you want to see how it progresses and changes, and I know

I want to see how others add to this project.” eir pride in ownership resulted

in students telling students in other classes about their creation of a wiki: “I

64 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

have told others about the wiki pages we worked on for our class and everyone

thinks it [is] amazing that we were able to do it.” Valuing students’ knowledge,

giving them a framework for the wiki, and allowing them autonomy for devel-

oping the wiki resulted in students taking ownership of the wiki.

Future uses. Although there are relatively few responses, 2.4% (8) of the

sources and 1.8% (10) of all references discuss concrete ideas for future use of

a wiki; the large number of responses in the Personally Useful and Ownership

categories show that the motivation and technical skills are present for these

preservice teachers to integrate wikis into their teaching. One student, mindful

that she was a member of a community of learners, noted in her reﬂection not

only future beneﬁts for herself, but also future beneﬁts for her classmates when

she wrote, “Not only does this information help me to prepare for bilingual

education teaching challenges, but it also gives general education teachers tips

on how to better serve ELL students they will have in their classrooms.” ese

preservice teachers were making the transition from student to teacher as they

recognized that the wiki contained information they would need in their future

classrooms. is transition was further evidenced by reﬂections such as “…

reading through the pages is very beneﬁcial for a future teacher” and “… I

found very interesting information that will help me in my future classroom.”

Students’ contributions to the wiki and their reﬂections showed that, over

the course of the semester, they came to see themselves as teachers. Whereas it

is expected that students make this transition during their ﬁeld-based courses,

their reﬂections on their contributions to the wiki provided evidence that this

indeed was happening.

Five preservice teachers considered ways they could use a wiki with their

future students. One posted, “I hope to eventually teach upper level grades and

have a wiki page or a class website.” A second preservice teacher saw a wiki as

a resource for students and their parents as evidenced in this reﬂection, “I love

the idea of a wiki and will try to perhaps start and maintain a wiki page for my

students and their parents.” Collaborating to create the wiki taught the preser-

vice teachers to use technology as they learned course content, and this student’s

posting indicates that she was ready to use her skills in her future classroom.

Another preservice teacher envisioned having her middle school students create

a wiki. She posted, “ey could have a group and pick a topic and the teacher

could help them start their own wiki.” She not only envisioned this, she was

also making plans to implement a wiki in her classroom.

Using the wiki to learn course content gave the preservice teachers ideas for

how to integrate technology into their own teaching. Most important, the wiki

demonstrated to the preservice teachers the value of allowing their students to

collaborate to construct a shared knowledge. ey came to understand that

meaningful, authentic class assignments requiring collaboration resulted in deep

learning. As one student reﬂected, “e wiki pages were an interesting way to

learn the concepts because I did not realize that I was actually learning without

studying the book.”

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Students’ Technology Concerns

Advanced technology skills were not required for editing the wiki page, and

the same skills that students used in word-processing documents transferred

to editing the wiki pages. However, 10% of all references (56) explained the

technology diﬃculties students encountered while working on the wiki. ese

included complaints about not being able to log into the wiki, not knowing

how to enable cookies, not having prior experiences working on shared docu-

ments, not being familiar with the refresh button, and deleting the content of

entire pages.

Students’ technology concerns revealed that some of them lacked technology

skills it was assumed they had already acquired, such as enabling cookies, work-

ing on shared documents, and clicking the refresh button in their Web browser.

Editing the wiki pages required that students have cookies enabled in their Web

browsers, and three students reported receiving error messages about not having

cookies enabled. For example, one student e-mailed, “I am having problems

signing on to the wiki pages. When I enter the password and my name, the

computer says the cookies on this computer are disabled.” With instructions

from the professor, two students enabled cookies on their home computers, and

one student brought her laptop computer to class for the instructor to walk her

through the process. During the ﬁrst semester the wiki was used, two students

reported during class that they could not edit a wiki page because someone

else was currently working on the page. Realizing that students did not have

previous experiences with sharing documents over the Web, class discussions

ensued explaining why only one person at a time could make edits to the

pages. Students realized that they should not wait until the last minute to make

edits, as access to a page might not be available. Another diﬃculty arose when

students edited their pages, clicked save, and received an error message. When

this was mentioned in class, other students responded that this had happened to

them and that the solution was to click the refresh button in their Web browser.

Sharing their technology concerns in class led students to realize that their

classmates were resources to turn to when they encountered problems. is real-

ization resulted in students immediately posting in WebCT for assistance from

their classmates when they encountered technology challenges. ey recognized

that, as they belonged to a community of learners, the collective knowledge of

the group was available to them all.

During the second semester, the introduction to the wiki included informa-

tion on enabling cookies, sharing documents, and clicking the refresh button.

Students’ inability to enable cookies, lack of experience with sharing docu-

ments over the Web, and not knowing to click the refresh button suggested that

perhaps they had not taken the required technology course. However, unoﬃcial

transcripts showed that all of the students in the classes had recently taken the

technology course and received either an A or a B. Although the technology

course required that they use Web browsers and complete assignments on the

Web, for some students this learning was not memorable and was not trans-

ferred to this new situation, the class wiki. Some preservice teachers’ inability

to transfer their technology skills to the wiki indicates how important it is that

66 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

they have technology integrated into all of the courses in their degree program

if they are going to successfully integrate technology into their own classrooms.

One student, who reported having taken several technology classes and

reported using technology in her job, noted seven technology concerns in her

reﬂections. is student was among those randomly selected to participate in

an interview, in which she stated that she considered herself an experienced

technology user and reiterated her concerns about the limitations of the wiki

software. For example, she stated, “I noticed the font I see on the edit page and

the actual font applied after save were diﬀerent. Obviously, this is a bit frustrat-

ing and the preview page should display the correct format.” Another student

posted ﬁve reﬂections indicating problems with the technology. is student

was the oldest student in the group and the most willing to try new things.

She was the only student who added new pages to the wiki and was one of the

students who deleted the contents of an entire page of the wiki. It seems that

contributing to the wiki was most challenging for the technology-savvy student

and the most adventurous student. When speciﬁcally asked about technology

concerns during the interviews, only one additional student reported problems.

Although students may have had technology concerns they did not report, it

seems that overall the wiki software was easy for the students to use.

Accidentally deleting the contents of entire pages was a persistent problem

over the two semesters, and it occurred twice each semester. Panicked calls and

e-mails to the instructor and pleading posts on the discussion board of WebCT

for help from their classmates followed these disastrous events. e introduc-

tion to the wiki included information on how the wiki tracked their edits and

allowed the instructor to delete unwanted edits, including those that deleted the

contents of a wiki page. Additionally, the instructor reassured the students that

if they deleted the contents of a page, she would refer back to the e-mails that

were sent after each page edit and determine who had contributed to the page.

is information was not meaningful to the students until they accidentally

deleted all of a page’s content and discovered that clicking the refresh button or

logging out of the wiki and logging back in would not restore the content. In

all four disasters, deleting the last edit restored the page; however, the success-

ful restoration of content did not ease all of the students’ fears about making

changes to the pages. Even though students were required during the last week

of class to edit and format their pages, some resisted, and as one noted, “I was

tempted to change all the text on the wiki page to match the same size, font,

and color, but was afraid to wipe out any of the information.” Hence, not all of

the wiki pages had ﬁnal edits completed at the end of each semester, as students

found it diﬃcult to edit each other’s work, in part because of a lingering fear

that they would delete the entire contents of a page.

Although technology problems persisted throughout the semester, students

had ample opportunities and successes in adding and manipulating content. is

was evidenced by the fact that 40% (136) of the sources and 44.3% (249) of

all references discuss activities, content, deﬁnitions, internal and external links,

new pages, and visuals added to the wiki. Additionally, after overcoming initial

technology problems, completing the dictionary assignment, and periodically

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

making posts to the wiki, students’ comments reﬂected a growing ease with

using the wiki. One student noted, “Editing the third wiki reﬂection was even

easier than my last one. I felt really comfortable adding to them.” Another

student reﬂected, “In my experience with contributing to the wiki, I found that

entering content was easier than I expected. I was nervous about entering the

wrong information, entering things that others might not agree with, or delet-

ing something on accident.” Although this student began to feel more conﬁdent

in her ability to use the wiki software, she had lingering concerns about others

critiquing her posts and accidentally deleting content from the wiki. Additional

experiences contributing to Web 2.0 technologies such as wikis and blogs will

perhaps make students more comfortable with posting information on the Web

that others might critique or change. Additional opportunities to use Web 2.0

technologies will also provide students with the skills and conﬁdence they need

to use them eﬀectively.

Lessons Learned

Preservice teachers’ suggestions for ways to improve the class wiki assignment

included assigning roles within the groups, so that the group members would

not be redoing and undoing each other’s ﬁnal edits to the pages. ey also

suggested assigning diﬀerent levels of access to the pages to prevent changes to

their pages during the last week of class, when ﬁnal edits were due. is would

prevent their classmates from going in during the last week of class and adding

additional content that frequently resulted in changes to the formatting and

necessitated additional checking for accuracy of content. However, the software

used for this wiki does not allow for assigning levels of access to individual pag-

es. e preservice teachers expressed concerns about the veracity of the Internet

sites that their classmates referenced and concerns about the accuracy of the

content posted on the wiki pages. ey also expressed concerns about content

from books that students had not properly referenced and content that students

had copied and pasted from Internet sites. A reference section was placed at the

bottom of each page to include bibliographic information for books cited on

the page. e professor instructed group members to delete any information

that had been copied and pasted directly from other Web sites. e preservice

teachers’ suggestions for improvements focused on their roles as contributors

and their responsibility for the quality of the content, which reﬂects their feel-

ings of ownership of the wiki.

DISCUSSION

Contributing to the class wiki required students to collaborate as they cre-

ated shared knowledge that enhanced the collective knowledge of the group.

As students read and reread the wiki pages, they developed an appreciation of

their classmates’ knowledge and recognized it as a valuable resource, as noted by

Hewitt and Scardamalia (1998) and Parker and Chao (2007). To contribute to

the wiki pages, students ﬁrst had to understand what their classmates knew and

then research to ﬁnd new information that would build on what their class-

mates wrote. Building on each other’s work required the preservice teachers to

68 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

be actively involved in the creation of a collaborative product (Dearstyne, 2007;

Richardson, 2006); this required them to compare and contrast what was al-

ready posted on the wiki with the content they found in their course textbooks,

textbooks from other courses, and Internet sites. Comparing and contrasting

the information from diverse sources led to deeper processing of the material,

which conﬁrms research by Mayer (2002). Using textbooks from other classes,

as well as assignments from other classes, produced a synergy (Achterman,

2006) that enhanced classmates’ understanding of the course content.

e preservice teachers perceived the wiki as personally useful for them as

students, as parents, and as future teachers. e wiki was not just another class

assignment to be completed for a grade; it became a collaborative endeavor

that contained the collective knowledge of the group that beneﬁted them all.

Finding it personally useful led students to assume ownership of the wiki and

to make it their personal repository of information. As one student noted, “e

wiki pages were exceedingly useful for me. ese collaborative pages of our

work helped me to better understand the textbook, the lectures in class, also

including my tutoring sessions and even on some of my other classes.”

Wikis, as with other Web 2.0 applications, are relatively easy to use and de-

ploy. Although the preservice teachers had persistent technology problems with

the wiki software, its ease of use enabled them to focus on learning the course

content rather than on learning to use a new technology. As advocated by

Mitchell (2003), Oliver (2007), and Wassell and Crouch (2008) these students

learned to use the application as they learned the course content. However, for

students with limited access to computers and limited access to the Internet,

contributing to the wiki was burdensome, as also noted by Farabaugh (2007).

Web 2.0 applications, such as wikis, require students to actively participate

in the creation of knowledge rather than passively absorbing knowledge (Wells,

1999). e collaborative knowledge creation resulted in the preservice teachers

deeply processing and learning the material. Further, they combined knowledge

gained from other teacher preparation courses with the new knowledge gained

in their language arts methods class, which resulted in a deeper learning of

the course content and a rich understanding of the connections between their

courses. As one student summed up her participation in the wiki, “It was fun

being a part of something so innovating [sic] and diﬀerent.”

Contributors

Kathryn I. Matthew is an associate professor in the School of Education at

the University of Houston—Clear Lake and director of the Greater Hous-

ton Area Writing Project. (Address: Kathryn I. Matthew, EdD, University of

Houston—Clear Lake, 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Mail Code 306, Houston, TX

77058; E-mail: [email protected])

Emese Felvegi is a consultant for the Department of Assessment and Evalu-

ation at the Educational Authority of Hungary and a graduate student at the

University of Houston—Clear Lake. (Address: Emese Felvegi, University of

Houston—Clear Lake, 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Mail Code 306, Houston, TX

77058; E-mail: [email protected])

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Rebecca A. Callaway is an assistant professor in the School of Education at

Arkansas Tech University. (Address: Rebecca A. Callaway, EdD, Arkansas Tech

University, 104 Crabaugh Hall, Russellville, AR 72801; E-mail: rcallaway@atu.

edu)

Acknowledgments

is research was funded by the Faculty Research and Support Funds, an

internal university grant. We would like to thank the preservice teachers who

participated in this study and the reviewers who provided invaluable feedback

on the original version of this article.

References

Achterman, D. (2006). Beyond Wikipedia. Teacher Librarian, 34(2), 19–22.

Ball, A. L., & Washburn, S. G. (2001). Teaching students to think: Practical ap-

plications of Bloom’s taxonomy. e Agricultural Education Magazine, 74(3),

16–17.

Econtent, 26(2), 40–43.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An

introduction to theories and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bold, M. (2006). Use of wikis in graduate course work. Journal of Interactive

Learning Research, 17(1), 5–14.

Open licensing and wikis. TechTrends, 52(1), 7–9.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the

culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Carr, T., Morrison, A., Cox, G., & Deacon, A. (2007). Weathering wikis: Net-

based learning meets political science in a South African University. Comput-

ers and Composition, 24(3), 266–284.

Colaric, S., & Johassen, D. (2001). Information equals knowledge, searching

equals learning, and hyperlinking is good instruction: Myths about learning

from the World Wide Web. Computers in the Schools, 17(3/4), 159–169.

Dearstyne, B. W. (2007). Blogs, mashups, & wikis: Oh My! Information Man-

agement Journal, 41(4), 24–33.

Descy, D. D. (2006). e wiki: True Web democracy. TechTrends, 50(1), 4–5.

Engstrom, M. E., & Jewett, D. (2005). Collaborative learning the wiki way.

TechTrends, 49(6), 12–15, 68.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton &

Company.

Evans, P. (2006, January/February). e wiki factor. BizEd. Retrieved Novem-

ber 18, 2006, from http://www.aacsb.edu/publications/Archives/JanFeb06/

p28-33.pdf

Farabaugh, R. (2007). “e isle is full of noises”: Using wiki software to estab-

lish a discourse community in a Shakespeare classroom. Language Awareness,

16(1), 41–56.

Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). e discovery of grounded theory. Chi-

cago: Aldine.

70 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

Grant, L. (2006). Using wikis in schools: A case study. Bristol, UK: Futurelab.

Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/

publications-reports-articles/discussion-papers/Discussion-Paper258

Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowl-

edge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75–96.

Hung, D. W. L., & Der-ang, C. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian

thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implica-

tions for the design of Web-based e-learning. Education Media International,

38(1), 3–12.

Hur, J. W., & Brush, T. A. (2009). Teacher participation in online communi-

ties: Why do teachers want to participate in self-generated online communi-

ties of K–12 teachers? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(3),

279–303.

Jakes, D. (2006). Wild about wikis. Technology and Learning, 27(1), 6, 8, 11.

Jonassen, D. H., Car, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for

engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32.

Locke, T. (2006). Wiki skills are essential in academics and life. American

Teacher, 91(2), 4.

Luce-Kapler, R. (2007). Radical change and wikis: Teaching new literacies.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(3), 214–223.

Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2006). Discussing new literacies. Language Arts,

84(1), 78–86.

Kuiper, E., & Volman, M. (2008). e Web as a source of information for

students in K–12 education. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear & D.

Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 241–266). New York:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. eory into Practice,

41(4), 226–232.

McPherson, K. (2006). Wikis and student writing. Teacher Librarian, 34(2),

70–71.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Mitchell, J. (2003). On-line writing: A link to learning in a teacher education

program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 127–143.

National Council of Teachers of English/International Reading Association.

(1996). Standards for the English Language Arts. Urbana, IL: National Council

of Teachers of English.

Oliver, K. (2007). Leveraging Web 2.0 in the redesign of a graduate-level tech-

nology course. TechTrends, 51(5), 55–61.

Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary

Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57–72.

Palmer, P. J. (1997). Teaching and learning in community. About Campus, 2(5),

4–13.

Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful Web tools for

classrooms. ousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Robinson, M. (2006). Wikis in education: Social construction as learning.

Community College Enterprise, 12(2), 107–109.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education

Sheehy, G. (2008). e wiki as a knowledge repository: Using a wiki in a com-

munity of practice to strengthen K–12 education. TechTrends, 52(6), 55–60.

State Board for Educator Certiﬁcation (SBEC). (2002). Texas English Language

Arts and Reading Educator Standards. Retrieved January 4, 2008, from http://

www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/standtest/standards/ec4lar.pdf

Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration

changes everything. New York: Penguin Group.

omas, A. (2008). Community, culture and citizenship in cyberspace. In J.

Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on

new literacies (pp. 671–697). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tynjal, P. (1998). Traditional studying for examination versus constructivist

learning tasks: Do learning outcomes diﬀer? Studies in Higher Education,

23(2), 173–190.

Wassell, B., & Crouch, C. (2008). Fostering connections between multicultural

education and technology: Incorporating weblogs into preservice teacher edu-

cation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 211–232.

Willis, J., Stephens, E. C., & Matthew, K. I. (1996). Technology, Reading and

Language Arts. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wells, C. G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory

of education. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (1997). Practice, learning, meaning, identity. Training 34(2),

38–39.

Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). e good, the bad, and the

wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British

Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 987–995.

AppENDIx

Interview Questions

How did you prepare for posting on the wiki pages? 1.

Probe questions: Did you read the wiki pages before you posted? What

impact did this have on your learning? What did you do before you

posted on the wiki pages?

How did your group decide what changes to make on your wiki page?2.

What resources did you use as you searched for content to add to the 3.

wiki pages?

Can you tell me about any connections you were able to make between 4.

LLLS 4434 and other courses you have taken?

How did adding to the wiki pages impact your learning the course con-5.

tent?

Can you tell me about a time when you were able to use or apply infor-6.

mation that others had posted on the wiki pages?

How would you use a wiki in the future? 7.

Probe questions: Do you have any ideas on other ways a wiki could be

used? What do you think are the long-term beneﬁts of using this wiki?

72 Fall 2009:

Volume 42 Number 1

How are they diﬀerent from other collaborative projects you have partici-8.

pated in?

Probe question: What are the drawbacks of using a wiki?

Did you have any experience editing electronic/online documents prior 9.

to attending this class?

Probe questions: How was editing the wiki pages diﬀerent from other

types of editing you have done on electronic documents (for example,

other Web pages or class assignments?

When you were working on the wiki pages did you encounter any tech-10.

nical problems?

Probe question: Can you tell me about them?

What kinds of edits did you make to other students’ postings on the wiki 11.

pages?