Wikis as education tools - reflections

The instructions were to set up a wiki.  No content or purpose was prescribed.  There was a notable lack of scaffolding in this course task.  It was interesting to see the various approaches this caused, from “lost sheep” simply going through the motions of setting up a wiki, to those higher thinkers who created a useful or engaging space. 

Some cohorts simply created an empty space, using the application’s default template.  Others changed the look and feel, but added little content.  Others still added “entertainment” content.  Finally, others created useful, interactive, collaborative spaces, for sharing relevant pedagogical or child-focussed topics.  There were some excellent ideas mainly repository-knowledge based (for example recommended books for children and fun recipes for children to get involved with) and others chose to scaffold their reflections in a wiki and have other students contribute to SWOTs, PMIs, etc.  As previously comments on wikis suggest, their educational use is highly constructivist and connectivist and should be collaborative, though this latter aspect cannot be taken for granted and must be encouraged (enforced) by a teacher in a classroom environment.

QCARs ICT Cross-Curriculum priorities focus on the uses of ICTs in education as follows: inquiring with ICTs, creating with ICTs, communicating with ICTs and operating ICTs (as well as ethics and issues with using ICTs).

Reflecting on my own learning, I didn’t find the creation of the wiki challenging, having engaged fully in the previous Moodle-based wikis and having created the ICT blog.  I appreciate that others did find the creation and operation more challenging – further evidence of the diversity of learners evident not only at post-graduate level, but as will be found in our school environments.  Course discussion forums once again lead to peer-coaching and reciprocal learning, with those more technically able helping out those on the course will less experience or confidence.  In a classroom environment, such peer-assistance would be easier to implement, on a face-to-face basis (assisting via email can be a time-consuming and less efficient form of communication).  However, the challenge to the teacher would be to ensure that a) pupils focus on the task, rather than chatting or going off at a tangent, b) appropriate partnerships were made (for example between a stronger and a weaker pupil), c) pupils were engaging, rather than letting their peers do all the work for them (whether due to a lack of application or ability/understanding).

I thought the primary use of my first wiki was practical and useful.  Students on the Literacy course had been split into groups to contribute to a Jigsaw on a chapter from a book.  The “Tail-Enders” (as I named our S-Z, last in the alphabet group) were to read an excerpt and donate (to the rest of the course) the five points they identified as most important from the reading.  There are 12 Tail-Enders, all of whom I invited to join the wiki.  6 of them joined, only one of whom contributed to the wiki table of important points (and only to the extent of adding her initials to agree with the points, rather than make any additions, alterations, comments or suggestions).  I found this disappointing and reflected on the reasons.  I think it is natural to take such responses personally, however, likely factors would include a lack of time; prioritisation on other aspects of the course; a feeling of being snowed under by invitations to join wikis, forums, comment on blogs, etc, and, finally, the fact that the Literacy project had not been engaged in particularly well by the course as a whole (perhaps because it is not part of the Assessment).

I did not limit access to the wiki to the Tail-Enders and in fact have 17 members of the wiki, only half of which have surnames S-Z.  That gave me personal pride and encouragement (much as the 21 “followers” of my blog and 700+ visits did).  This is clearly a positive when looking at children – the knowledge that what they put on line can be “shown-off” to the world at large.  The negative (as discovered by others on the course) is that it can be disheartening when no-one “follows” or comments on your efforts, making you wonder why you bother.  This wondering may be particularly prevalent in children who might not see the meta-cognition benefits of the learning experience itself, focussing more on the content or results.

So why did these other people join my wiki?  It certainly wasn’t to be wowed by our Literacy Jigsaw.  However, I also created a Nosey Parkers’ page with a silly profile quiz in it.  More contributors, but still only 6, all of whom (aside from the bald creator) have brown hair.  Not sure what I can really take from this fact (the lack of contribution rather than the hair colour).  Why would one join a wiki then not contribute?  Surely my fellow students know the purpose of the wiki?  Surely they must’ve read the joining instructions (which told them not to join if they weren’t going to join in).  I even emailed all upon joining, thanking them for joining and urging them to contribute (to little avail).  Reflecting on the reasons for this, again, the same priorities and timing issues presumably arise, but why bother joining if not to join in?  Perhaps they were expecting more from the wiki, weren’t very engaged, and were too polite to say so?  Again, looking at this from a school perspective, the teacher would be on hand to encourage/ensure pupils contributed appropriately, and to enquire as to the reasons behind a lack of contribution.

ICTs should not be used as mere entertainment or gimmicks, but part of well-designed pedagogy.  I must question the relevance and engagement of my own wiki to fellow students.  Whilst the intended use for the Tail-Enders had merit, the overall wiki (past the frivolous profile quiz) was not very engaging.  This is partly due to a lack of experience or imagination as to what might engage fellow students, or school children, and partly due to a lack of time to spend creating such an engaging theme, idea or wiki.

Familiarity breeds contempt, or in my case, a somewhat blasé attitude to known and accepted technologies.  It is easy to forget the basic benefits of web (and particularly Web 2.0) technology.  Anyone, anywhere, with internet access (and the requisite permissions) can access a wiki.  This gives a great opportunity for parents and carers to engage more in their child’s learning, by seeing what the class is working on and assessing and encouraging their child’s contributions.  Wikis set up with appropriate security settings avoid many of the concerns over safe internet use by children viz stranger danger and releasing private informatoin.  The researching of content for a wiki would be subject to the usual legal pitfalls in respect of copywright and attribution, although the teacher/moderator would be well-positioned to remind pupils beforehand and to address any breaches.  However, when it comes to accessing inappropriate content, or ergonomic issues such as desk set-up and over-use, it is the parents who are best placed to control these dangers, not the teacher.

There is, of course the danger of parents getting over-involved and trying to take too much of a role in the learning space itself, (rather than just moderating their child's safe online behaviour).  There is also the corollary danger of parents not getting involved at all – through feelings of ignorance and fear, lack of understanding of the value, lack of time, or a basic lack of interest and support in their child’s education, or ignorance of online risks.  Not that there’s anything new with any of these elements; it is only the technology that’s changing.