Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Advisor(s)
Author(s)
Fu, Huijuan;
Citation
Issued Date
URL
Rights
2013
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/202372
By Huijuan FU
()
August 2013
Submitted by
Huijuan FU ()
For the degree of Master of Philosophy
at The University of Hong Kong
in July 2014
ii
Declaration
I declare that the thesis and the research work thereof represents my own work, except
where due acknowledgement is made, and that it has not been previously included in
a thesis, dissertation or report submitted to this University or to any other institution
for a degree, diploma or other qualifications.
Huijuan FU ()
July 2014
iii
iv
Acknowledgements
First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Samuel Chu for his guidance,
support, patience and encouragement throughout this challenging period. This
research and thesis would not have been completed without him. His professionalism
and work attitude will remain with me in my future career. I also appreciate the
valuable ideas and feedback from my co-supervisor, Dr. Daniel Churchill. I am
honored I have them on my supervisory panel.
Equally importantly, I would like to thank my dear friends in and outside the
Faculty of Education: Sanyin Chen, Enmou Huang, Bei YUAN, Yuqin Yang,
Lianjiang JIANG, Zhen LI, Dan SI, Belinda LAU, and Yan LIU. They made my life
at the University of Hong Kong colorful and unforgettable. Some of them have
reviewed and helped me edit the manuscript of this research. Thanks again for your
help.
My special thanks are given to my family, especially to my husband who has
mentally helped me get through some of the toughest times of my journey. I also
thank my baby girl for giving me the courage at the last tough phase and hope for the
future.
Last but not least, I acknowledge the University of Hong Kong for financial and
institutional support for my studies. I am grateful to my faculty colleagues and
administrators for their support. I also acknowledge the involvement and support of
the principal, teaching staff and students from the participating schools.
Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................... i
Declaration .............................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ....................................................................................... vi
Lists of Tables ............................................................................................. vii
Lists of Figures .......................................................................................... ix
Abbreviations ............................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH .......................................................................... 1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................................ 5
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................... 7
1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH ........................................................................... 7
1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS .................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................... 10
2.1 COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING ........................................... 11
2.1.1 Collaborative learning .............................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 Collaborative leanring suppoted by computer technology ............................. 16
2.1.3 Affordance and constraint ........................................................................................ 18
2.2 PROJECT-BASED COLLABORATION ........................................................................ 22
2.2.1 Project-based learning .............................................................................................. 22
2.2.2 Collaborative project-based learning ................................................................... 24
2.3 WIKI TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................. 26
2.3.1 Educational benefits of wikis ................................................................................... 28
2.3.2 Wikis for collaborative learning ............................................................................. 30
2.4 SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 34
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 37
3.1 RATIONAL FOR A MIXED-METHOD RESEARCH DESIGN .......................................... 37
3.2 PARTICIPANTS ...................................................................................................... 39
3.3 THE WIKI GOOGLE SITES ................................................................................... 40
vi
Lists of Tables
(First numbers indicate chapters)
Table 2.1
Differences between constructivism and social constructivism ...................12
Table 2.2
Technological affordances of CSCL environments ......................................21
Table 3.1
Timetable of the instructional design ............................................................42
Table 3.2
Types of Data and Amount Involved .............................................................50
Table 3.3
Sample for the different data sources .............................................................51
Table 3.4
Data-Planning Matrix .....................................................................................52
Table 4.1
Wiki affordance categories generated by the qualitative analysis ..................58
Table 4.2
Wiki affordances found in different data resource ..........................................61
Table 4.3
Wiki constraints categories generated by the qualitative analysis ..................66
Table 4.4
Wiki constraints found in different data resource ...........................................67
Table 4.5
Students perceptions of Wikis from survey data ............................................70
viii
Lists of Figures
(First numbers indicate chapters)
Figure 2.1
Diagram of the research area ......................................................................10
Figure 2.2
A set-based model of collaboration .............................................................14
Figure 3.1
Project sample-The History of Hong Kong ..................................................47
Figure 4.1
Distribution of affordances found in the qualitative data sources ................62
Figure 4.2
Distribution of affordances found in the qualitative data sources ................67
Figure 5.1
The usefulness of wiki as a collaborative PjBL environment .......................77
Abbreviations
CSCL Computer-supported collaborative learning
GS
General Studies
ICT
IT
Information Technology
P5
Primary-five
PjBL
Project-based learning
ix
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
This chapter presents an overview of the research, consisting of five parts: (a)
background of the research, (b) statement of the problem, (c) research questions, (d)
significance of the research, and (e) structure of the thesis.
the important skills for the 21st Century (Bell, 2010; Chu et al., 2012).
Based on social constructivist principles, collaborative interactions among
students have been shown to enhance learning through exposure alternative
perspectives (Brett & Nagra, 2005). Collaborative learning also emphasizes social and
intellectual engagement, and mutual responsibility (Smith & MacGregor, 1992). As
such, peer interactions that ensue from a collaborative approach is an important
component of the learning experience (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Since
collaborative learning places great emphasis on the extent of the exchanges that occur
among students in a given environment (Dillenbourg & Schneider, 1995), the use of
social media, going beyond traditional delivery formats, can provide great significant
support (Huertas, Casado, Crcoles, Mor, & Roldn, 2007; Sigala, 2007).
Social media has been defined as a group of Internet-based applications that
build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the
creation and exchange of user generated content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61).
Web 2.0 is the move toward a more interactive and collaborative web, which enables
users not only to search information, but also to collaborate on creation and edition of
content (Churchill, 2007; Glassman & Kang, 2011; Murugesan, 2007). OReilly
popularized the term Web 2.0 at the first Web 2.0 conference (now renamed Web 2.0
Summit) in 2004 (OReilly, 2004). Despites the popularity of the term Web 2.0,
proved by more than 9.5 million citations on the term in Google (Allen, 2009), the
meaning of the term itself is still heavily questioned. OReilly summarized the debate
around the term Web 2.0 as theres still a huge amount of disagreement about just
what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing
buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom (OReilly, 2007,
p. 18). By contrast, scholars generally agree that social media are, after all, social in
nature, since they function as tools to connect with people through communication on
these sites (Boyd & Ellison, 2008; Choudhury, Sundaram, John, & Seligmann, 2010;
Trautschold, Mazo, & Karch, 2011). There is no agreement on what the distinction
actually entails between Web 2.0 and social media(Poore, 2013; Safko & Brake,
2010), but the search result of Web 2.0 and social media in Google Scholar shows
that social media has been used more commonly among researchers by year 2011.
While Web 2.0 and social media seem to refer to the similar set of ideologies and
technologies, I will adopt the term social media to refer to the tools, applications,
services and technologies which facilitate online social interactions.
Use of social media for learning is widely acceptable with todays students who
are growing up in a digital society (Bryant, 2006; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). If
used correctly, on the basis of their social nature, social media can support interaction
and collaboration, assisting in moving from a teaching-centered to a learner-centered
approach to education, which is the key feature of constructivist pedagogical
paradigm (Poore, 2013). The main education affordances of social medial are
communication, interaction and collaborative participation (Pifarre & Staarman,
2011). Blog, Wiki, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are examples of social media
tools (Safko & Brake, 2010), which have been carried out in the context of empirical
studies for the purpose of different educational tasks. It has been suggested that these
Zhou, 2004; Bower, Woo, Roberts, & Watters, 2006; Chu, Cheung, Ma, & Leung,
2008; Lamb, 2004). As such, the increasing use of wiki technology for teaching and
learning appears to hinge on its usefulness as a CSCL environment.
face-to-face learning environments, rather than whether CSCL is better than face-toface collaborative learning (Resta & Laferrire, 2007).
CSCL environments have been found to encounter problems in facilitating the
desired effective student interaction in a collaborative learning approach (Kirschner,
Strijbos, Kreijns, & Beers, 2004). For instance, some studies have reported that the
incorporation of wikis into courses was found to have little impact on student
engagement (Cole, 2009; Kapur & Kinzer, 2009). The problem has been identified as
being associated with poorly designed and supported integration of wikis into the
teaching format of the course. It has been suggested that technologies as CSCL
environments need to be examined in terms of not only technological capacities to
support collaboration, but also the educational and social factors that facilitate
collaborative activities (Kirschner et al., 2004). It appears that a better understanding
of wikis in education will be developed if we examine the specific learning activities
that are afforded by this technology. Equally important is the identification of possible
effects that inhibit, restrict, or diminish other learning experiences, which are referred
to as constraints (Bowman, Holmes, & Swan, 1999).
Collaborative learning has been promoted through the implementation of small
group projects (Hathorn & Ingram, 2002). The Education Bureau (EDB) of Hong
Kong also has identified project-based learning (PjBL) as a powerful learning strategy
which is one of the Four Key Tasks as proposed in Learning to learn (Education
Bureau, 2001). PjBL is a student-centered instructional method that gives students the
opportunity to select topics and take charge of their own learning (Alloway et al.,
1997). Group project work requires students designing their own inquiries, planning
their learning, organizing their research, and completing a final written report (Bell,
2010). Recent studies demonstrate that wikis is a useful tool for primary-school
students collaborative writing (Li, Chu, Ki, & Woo, 2012; Woo, Chu, Ho, & Li,
2011). Nevertheless, given project-based collaboration setting, the affordances and
constraints of wiki perceived by primary-school students is still under-explored.
10
11
constructivism argue that learning is not only an individual but a group process. (Stahl
et al., 2006).
Table 2.1: The differences between constructivism and social constructivism
Constructivism
Assumption
Social constructivism
discovery.
Definition of
learning
own knowledge.
Key theorist
Piaget (1976)
Vygotsky (1978)
Learning
Collecting unorganized
Strategies
thinking occurs.
Personal discovery of
General
Orientation
knowledge.
mediated by different
perspectives.
Teachers provide for facilitation
integration of concepts
collaborative activity
Ill-structured problems
Ill-structured problems
reflection
Shared ownership of the task
Implications
for teaching
appropriate challenges
appropriate challenges
Encourage experimentation
share discovery
Drew on existing concepts/ skills
Scaffold and social skills
concepts/ skills
Coach an model meta-
cognitive skills
12
13
active; (2) teaching and learning are shared experiences; (3) students participate in
small-group activities; (4) students take responsibility for learning; (5) students reflect
on their own assumptions and thought processes; (6) social and team skills are
developed through the give-and-take of consensus-building. Strijbos, Martens and
Jochems (2004) have done a thorough review on cooperative and collaborative
learning and they argue that cooperative and collaborative are insubstantial as design
principles. (p. 409).
Despite the similarity, the difference between collaborative and cooperative
learning mainly lies in division of labor. Dillenbourg (1999, p. 8) makes a distinction
between cooperation and collaboration: In cooperation, partners split the work, solve
sub-tasks individually and then assemble the partial results into the final output. In
collaboration, partners do the work together. Shah (2012) asserts that collaboration is
a superset of cooperation and draws a set model (see Figure 2.2). These five sets of
collaboration are described as follows:
14
15
collaboration in innovative ways provides a stimulus for CSCL research. Crook (1994)
considers computers as a context for social interaction, and he describes different
types of collaborative experiences of learning with computers in four forms:
(1) Involving computer-based tutoring systems, in which the student interacts
with computers in solitary,
(2) Integrating broader social engagement, in which collaborative interactions of
teachers and students are organized in relation to computers,
(3) At computers involving peer collaboration with a joint activity that provides a
point of shared reference and understanding for students to co-construct a piece
of writing or to work together at the site of a problem,
(4) Around and through computers, in which a wider learning community of
individuals or small groups share a common working space accessible to shared
files, and in which social exchange is possible through communicative means
without participants necessarily co-present in the same place at the same time.
Advancing technology has produced collaborative technology which refers to specific
technological support for collaboration built into computer networks such as wikis,
blogs and other social media (Lipponen, 2001). Collaborative technology fits the
fourth description of collaborative experience: learning around and through
computers.
Different kinds of group activities can be supported by different social media. As
technology continues to become commonly used in education, CSCL proposes the
development of new software and applications that bring learners together and offer
creative activities of intellectual exploration and social interaction (Stahl et al., 2006).
Technology is used primarily for structuring collaboration, setting frames for how
learning takes place. Resta and Laferrire (2007) summarizes four instructional
17
motives for the use of technology in support of collaborative learning: (1) to prepare
students with collaboration skills and knowledge creation for the knowledge society;
(2) to enhance student cognitive performance or foster deep understanding; (3) to add
flexibility of time and space for collaborative learning; (4) to foster student
engagement and keep track of student collaborative work. According to Arvaja,
Hkkinen and Kankaanranta (2008), collaborative technology in connection with
corresponding pedagogical practices is usually called a CSCL environment. There has
been wide-spread interest to explore the potentials of social media as CSCL
environments.
while Norman places more emphasis on how an object is perceived which will be a
better way to evaluate learning technologies.
In the educational field, affordances is helpful to not only understand a learner
perception toward a learning environment, but also reveal how learning occurs
through a learner interaction with the environment (Li, 2012). Affordance has been
used as a framework for the purpose of designing and evaluating CSCL environments
that involve the unanticipated interactions between members during collaborative
learning, such that affordances are classified as educational, technological and social
affordances (Kirschner et al., 2004). Educational affordance refers to characteristics
of the learning environment that facilitate collaborative learning behavior; social
affordance to characteristics that offer social-contextual facilitation in relation to
students social interaction; and technological affordance to characteristics that
technology enable learners to accomplish learning tasks in an efficient and effective
way. This classification was developed from the understanding that CSCL represented
a learning situation where the education context is collaborative, the social context is
the group, and the technological context is the computer-mediated setting (Kirschner
et al., 2004, p. 50).
When evaluating technology as a CSCL environment, the educational, social,
and technological affordances should be analyzed as a whole entity. In describing a
methodology to support technology selection for the learning process, Bower (2008)
proposed a classification system of affordances that included functional categories in
terms of information representation and transmission. Technological affordances are
20
further classified as: media, spatial, temporal, navigation, synthesis and access-control
(see Table 2.2).
Table 2.2: Technological affordances of CSCL environments
1. Media
The ability to input and output various media forms, such as text, images audio and video
2. Spatial
The ability to resize, move or place contents within an interface
3. Temporal
The ability to access anytime anywhere as well as to record and play back information
4. Navigation
The ability to browse and search other sections of the interface, as well as to link and sort
sections
5. Synthesis
The ability to combine and integrate multiple components and create a mixed-media
platform
6. Access-control
The ability to allow or deny access and contributions
a boundary, guide, or structure for action (Kennewell, Tanner, Jones, & Beauchamp,
2008). Accordingly, a constraint is not a physical characteristic or not necessarily a
negative attribute, but a perception of a potential for action that is dependent on a
users knowledge, skills and disposition. The concept of constraints refers to the
limitations of an object in relation to its user, the incapacity, or diminished capacity, to
utilize a tool at will (Murphy & Coffin, 2003). An improved understanding of the
affordances and constraints resulting from a users interactions within learning
environments is conducive to teaching and learning (Swan, 2003).
23
PjBL is a model for classroom activities that shift away from the traditional
classroom practices of teacher-centered to student-centered. PjBL provides many
unique opportunities for teachers to build relationship with students. Teachers
play the role of facilitator or co-learner instead of instructor.
PjBL is the unique way that can motivate students by engaging them in their own
learning. It provides opportunities for students to pursue their own interests,
questions and make decisions about how they will find answers and solve
problems.
24
are highly compatible for effective implementation into the classroom (Lou &
MacGregor, 2004).
Collaborative PjBL adopts a project-based approach using authentic problems to
bringing together knowledge and skills (Donnelly & Fitzmaurice, 2005). Such a
learning environment has the feature of rich teaching and learning environment that
stresses knowledge is constructed through learner activity and interaction (Biggs,
1999, p. 93).
Dealing specifically with the subject of the collaboration, McGrath (1993)
describes a four-stage process: (i) incipient apprenticeship (goal choice); (ii) solution
of problems (resources choice); (iii) solution of conflicts (politics choices); (iv)
execution (goals reaching). These stages are echoed by the classical research project
phases: (1) previous works (understanding of the theme); (2) planning (definition of
objectives, choosing of work methodology and analysis of risks); (3) implementation
of the research (decisions, gathering and analysis of data); (4) processing of the
outcomes of the project (report composition) (Grgoire & Laferrire, 1999; Santoro,
Borges, & Santos, 2003).
Collaborative PjBL differs from traditional inquiry activities in its emphasis on
team members collaboration and tangible products as a result of the project
(Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Milentijevic et al., 2008). In collaborative PjBL, active
participation should be in the entire process and students must feel involved,
otherwise the group project will be bound to fail (Polman, 1996). Besides,
collaborative projects typically involves students carrying out tasks that lead to an
25
artifact, which in many cases, consists of a written report (Helle et al., 2006). Coauthored document is in a constant state of potential collaborative change (Kessler,
2009, p. 80). Co-authoring of documents by group members is a key aspect of
collaborative learning within the context of group projects.
Since interaction among group members is the key factor for Collaborative PjBL,
one big challenge arises when incorporating this method in traditional classroom
settings, that is, students interactions are limited in face-to-face contexts (Blumenfeld
et al., 1991; Krajcik, Czerniak, & Berger, 2002). If learners are given more
opportunities to work together with fewer time and space limitations, they might
obtain more productive outcomes from project work. Larruson and Alterman (2009, p.
397) states, using collaborative technology to extend the physical borders of the
classroom can be of significant value. Students need to be encouraged not only to
work individually but also to work collaboratively in both face-to-face classrooms and
online environments (Lou & MacGregor, 2004). Thus, at the operational level,
collaborative PjBL approach normally uses information and communication
technology to support the learning activities. (Santoro et al., 2003). Recently, many
scholars pay more attention to explore how online collaboration tools can be used to
effectively support Collaborative PjBL.
Hawaiian term for quick, is a collaborative authoring tool that Ward Cunningham
developed in 1994 (Augar et al., 2004; Leuf & Cunningham, 2001). Leuf and
Cunningham describe the wiki as "... easy and quick to edit, thus inviting user
contribution. In addition, if you follow the wiki naming conventions, pages
automatically and elegantly interlink with each other in meaningful ways" (2001, p.
15). Ebersbach, Glaser, and Heigl (2006, p. 10) define wikis as web-based software
that allow all viewers of a page to change the content by editing the page online in a
browser. Simply put, a wiki is an editable website that multiple users collaboratively
built up (Cole, 2009).
Wiki encompasses a range of software systems that allow users to interact and
share. There are 200 different types of wikis by 2006 and the core functions of wiki
are editing, links, history, recent changes, and searching (Ebersbach et al., 2006). The
essential characteristics of wiki can be generalized in the following three components
(Coyle, 2007): (1) group collaboration: easily and quickly have a group of people
editing information; (2) user driven: wikis users determines its usage and evolution;
(3) constant change: wikis enable rapid change and a general trend to more
complete/accurate information, with the history function allowing for rolling back to
track activity and restore the previous content by opening a previous version in case
of accidental, malicious or incorrect edits. It seems that wiki excels at collaboration,
facilitating information and knowledge exchange with and between teams that makes
it ideal for teamwork.
27
28
Applied to social media, pedagogical value has been defined as the capacity of
students to take part in learning through active participation in group interactions
based on constructivist learning principles (Hazari, North, & Moreland, 2009). With
respect to this definition, Hazari and North (2009) develop an instrument to
investigate pedagogical value of wiki technology. This evaluation approach may
generate learners perceptions that are specifically relevant to a technologys efficacy
in facilitating collaborative learning. This instrument measures the following
constructs: overall learning, motivation, group interaction, and technology. Details of
these four factors are given below:
1.
Items within the Overall Learning factor assess information about students'
perception of interest in course, retention of material, active learning, and use
of course material to meet learning objectives.
2.
3.
4.
29
aspects of the tools they use during group project work. Obviously, Overall Learning
factor connects to educational affordance, Group Interaction factor connects to social
affordance and Technology factor connects to technological factor. For Motivation
factor, it is supposed to evaluate students perceptions on the future use of the wiki,
which does not fit in these three affordances.
30
ideas into the construction of a final intellectual output, and recognize the creation of
knowledge and information as an increasing group effort (Richardson, 2006).
Learning via wikis cultures social acceptance, which leads student construct and reconstruct as they work toward the final version of their project (Yu, Tian, Vogela, &
Kwoka, 2010).
Recent research has supported the usefulness of wikis, particularly for tasks that
are collaborative in nature (Bower et al., 2006). Wikis have been demonstrated to help
facilitating student interaction, and enable students to discuss group tasks, peer review
each others work, collaborate on the project and mange their work (Wang et al.,
2013). Fountatin (2005) suggests several applications of a wiki in collaborative
project work, including managing a long-term design process, problem solving,
permitting
constructive
critique
of
pedagogical
projects,
allowing
31
Krogstie (2008) has investigated the specific characteristics of wikis that make
them helpful for collaborative project work. The student project teams made use of
wiki as (1) a knowledge repository where project artifacts, useful resources and
historical information were included or linked in the wiki; (2) means of staging the
projects that not only provides a status update but also potentially serves a role in
conveying a project identity for team members to share; (3) coordination mechanisms
for planning, monitoring and replanning project work in a very flexible way; and (4)
shared workspaces for providing shared access to various artifacts.
There are also some studies concerning the utilization of wikis for collaborative
learning among primary-school students. Dsilets and Paquet (2005) have presented a
case study where primary-school students used a wiki for collaborative storytelling
and results showed web-based collaborative storytelling using a wiki system is quite
feasible at a primary Grade 4-6 level. This case study reported observations on the
collaborative process that took place during the activity and shed valuable insights on
the collaborative process that children undergo when using wiki for collaborative
storytelling. However, there are some important issues need to be further studied. For
example, what were the most frequent usability problems/ constraints encountered by
students while using the wiki for collaborative storytelling and how to alleviate those
problems?
More recently, Pifarre and Staarman (2011) have illustrated the specific
characteristics of collaborative use of wiki by primary-school students in a science
project. First, it enhanced students active participation in writing the collaborative
32
33
study, students perceived the social affordance to be the increased group interactions
and educational affordance to be their improved writing ability. In the mean time, it
identified some specific constraints of the wiki-MeidaWiki. On the one hand, both
students and the teacher struggled with the collaborative aspects of the assignment.
For example, peer negotiation of divergent viewpoints impeded their process. On the
other hand, there were three kinds of technical issues: (1) some students did not
master the wikis technical features; (2) it was difficult for primary-school students to
learn the wikis formatting rules; and (3) there were incompatibilities between
Chinese writing formats and the formatting rules of MediaWiki.
2.4 Summary
Collaborative PjBL combines the use of technology and the constructivist orientation
of collaborative learning and PjBL. Previous studies have shown benefits derived
from using collaborative PjBL. There is also a substantial research on the benefits of
using wikis for collaborative projects (Bower et al., 2006). Taken together, both the
theoretical and practical rationales for undertaking the present research is sufficient.
Despite the increased use of wiki-based collaborations, empirical research is
needed to explore how wikis may be able to facilitate collaborative projects in
primary education. There are still relatively few research studies on the use of wikis in
primary education and, in particular, its use in collaborative learning processes (Lund
& Rasmussen, 2008). Further, there is a dearth of research looking at the underlying
processes in the students use of wiki. When it comes to learning technologies,
teachers apply certain new technology to teaching with a belief that this technology
34
will afford learning to occur in some way (Barnes, 2000). It has been confirmed that
the way in which technology is integrated in learning depends on teachers
understanding (Churchill & Churchill, 2008). Nevertheless, researchers argue that the
importance should also be attached to students perception (Ramanau & Geng, 2009).
Wikis are considered as a new and important collaborative technology, so it is
essential to explore whether effective collaboration can take place when wikis are
implemented (Lee & Wang, 2013). Literature reveals that affordance theory has been
widely applied to explore how technology can be effective CSCL environment
(Kennewell, 2001; Kirschner, 2002; Kirschner et al., 2004; Song, 2011). From a social
constructivist perspective, affordances of learning technology are connected with both
the capabilities of the technology and the abilities of the learner to take learning
actions in certain environments (Day & Lloyd, 2007; Jonassen, Hernandez-Serrano, &
Choi, 2000). There may exist a marked difference between how learners perceive the
affordance of the tools and the intentions of the educators or technologists who design
and implement them (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). Thus, in considering the use of
social media for leaning, it is necessary to recognize that their affordances are
ultimately dependent on the learners perceptions. Such a conception of technology
affordances fits in well with the position taken in this study: students learning
activities are not determined by the wiki but are shaped by how students perceive
what the wiki can or cannot do for them when they engaging in collaborative projects
via wiki. Besides, given students relatively low levels of participation, it has been
also suggested that we should carry studies to explore students perception related to
35
36
Chapter 3 Methodology
The methodology section starts by stating the rationale for employing a mixed method
approach in this study. The following section delineates how this study is carried out.
It consists of participants, procedure as well as data collection and analysis.
38
3.2 Participants
Because this study needed schools to apply collaborative PjBL strategy, collaborative
teaching model and wiki technology, which are quite different from traditional
teaching method, very few Hong Kong local primary schools were willing to try. Thus,
this study was conducted on a convenience sample of 4 Hong Kong local Chinese
primary schools which had build a long term relationship with the author primary
supervisor. All primary-five (P5) classes of these four schools in each school
participated in the project. The total of 388 P5 students, with an average age of ten
years participated in this study from 1 October to 30 December 2010.
Details of students per school are as follows: 4 classes totaling 136 students from
WSK 1 primary school, 2 classes totaling 64 students from SH primary school, 4
classes totaling 126 students from CPS primary school and 2 classes totaling students
62 from KF primary school. Numbers of male and female students were roughly equal,
These four abbreviations (WSK, SH, CPS and KF) were used to make the schools anonymous.
39
197 and 191, respectively. Their General Studies (GS) teachers, Information
Technology (IT) teachers and teacher librarians were involved in this study. Because
multiple teachers taught multiple classes and subjects, there were 26 teachers
participating: 8 from WSK, 7 from SH, 5 from CPS and 6 from KF. The students were
already equipped with basic IT skills and writing ability. All the teachers were given
workshops on the topic of collaborative PjBL and the use of wiki.
All students participating in this study returned informed consent forms with
signatures of their parents or guardians. The teachers and school principals also
returned signed informed consent forms. All procedures were approved by Human
Research Ethics Committee for Non-Clinical Faculties (HRECNCF) of the University
of Hong Kong.
41
GS lesson
IT lesson
Students learned information
and communication skills,
with a focus on the use of
Google Sites.
2
3
4
6-7
8-11
12
Library lesson
Students learned
information literacy
skills
3.4.1 Grouping
Previous studies have reported that small groups seem to function better than large
groups (Johnson & Johnson, 1996; Salomon & Globerson, 1989). Social loafing
(free riding) is a common complaint and negative perception of group work, which
much often happens in large group when some members do not feel personally
responsible for achieving the common objective and hence contribute little to group
work (Webb, 1995). Small groups enable students to participate fully and to build
group cohesion (Schellens & Valcke, 2006). Bean (1996) has demonstrated a group
size of five may be optimal for many learning situations because larger groups may
dilute the experience for the learner. In formal learning tasks, pairing may cause a
negative interrelationship (Bean, 1996; Harasim, 1993). Therefore, this study decides
to use five-member groups, but in practice some class might have groups of six
members because of the size of class.
In addition, there are some evidences supporting the claim that groups are
42
44
45
46
47
49
detailed changes made to the contents of the page, so we tracked students actions
(e.g., co-construction of reports and communications within the wiki).
(3) Focus group interviews (8 groups, 42 students: 9 students from KF, 5
students from CPS, 11 students from SH and 17 students from WSK). Each focus
group interview lasted about 30minutes and took place within the school. The focus
group format was chosen for the student interviews because a group situation may
stimulate student discussion more readily than a one to one interview with a
researcher, whom the students may not feel comfortable talking to. A total of 42
students were selected, representing both gender and different groups in different
schools. We designed the interview questions to capture students experiences,
opinions, and values about the wiki (see Appendix 1). Although consent has been
attained from their parents or guardians, the students were asked orally for their
consent before videotaping the discussion.
Table 3.2 shows types of qualitative data to be collected and the amount involved.
Table 3.2: Types of qualitative data and amount involved
Types of Data to be collected
Sound recording
Recorded data
from wiki
Amount Involved
Student reflections
Students comments
Content of edits
To sum up, to make the description clear, the sample for the different data sources
is sorted in Table 3.3.
50
KF
SH
CPS
WSK
Number of classes
62
64
126
136
KF5A : 28
SH5A:31
CPS5A:32
WSK5A :37
KF5B: 34
SH5B:33
CPS5B:33
WSK5B:35
CPS5C:28
WSK5C:34
CPS5D:33
WSK5D:30
13
13
26
27
KF5Ai: 6
SH5B:6
CPS5A:6
WSK5A:7
KF5A: 7
SH5B:7
CPS5B:7
WSK5B:7
CPS5C:6
WSK5C:7
CPS5D:7
WSK5D:6
ii
M:36
M:54
M:74
iii
F :34
F:28
F:72
F:62
KF
SH
CPS
WSK
Number of classes
16
20
20
KF5A1 iv:5
SH5A1:5
CPS5B1:5
WSK5A1:5
KF5A2:6
SH5B2:5
WSK5B1:6
KF5B1:5
SH5B3:5
WSK5B2:5
SH5B4:5
WSK5C2:5
Gender
Gender
M :28
M: 8
M:10
M:2
M:12
F:8
F:10
F:3
F:8
KF
SH
CPS
WSK
Number of classes
11
17
KF5A:7
SH5A:2
CPS5B:5
WSK5A:4
KF5B:2
SH5B:9
Focus groups
WSK5B:9
WSK5C:4
Gender
M:5
M:6
M:1
M:9
F:4
F:5
F:4
F:8
51
52
To address the first two research questions regarding affordances and constraints
of the wiki, qualitative data were coded and analyzed to examine any emerging
patterns. In order to better facilitate coding analysis process, qualitative analysis
software Nvivo was incorporated in the coding protocols. Initially, the framework for
coding followed three categories of affordances defined by Kirschner, et al. (2004).
The first level category of affordances included (1) educational affordances, (2) social
affordances, and (3) technological affordances. Technological affordances required for
collaborative writing tasks were further matched against wikis affordances based on
Bowers (2008) classification of e-learning technology affordances. With regard to
educational and social affordances, subcategories in primary-school students
collaborative PjBL tasks have not been identified in previous studies. As such, these
emerged from the current data naturally through an interactive process of coding.
Based on the definitions of affordances, identifying subcategories is generating from
qualitative data. Such an approach is a commonly strategy to study online educational
discourse (Chu et al., 2012; Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, Koole, & Kappelman, 2006).
The same coding scheme are performed for the constrains.
With respect to the coding categories, one unit of analysis was defined as a
transcription that corresponded to an action made during the wiki sessions, or a
comment made by students during the wiki session or from the contents of wiki pages.
Given the project-based collaboration setting, a smaller unit of analysis-a sentence has
been used to decrease unit boundary overlap (Strijbos, Martens, Prins, & Jochems,
2006).
53
To ensure that the data was coded according to a sound coding scheme and
achieve acceptable levels of reliability, the process of coding text entails several steps:
segmentation of text, codebook creation, coding, assessment of reliability, codebook
modification, and final coding (Hruschka et al., 2004). Six iterations were performed
to refine the coding categories. The major disagreements between I and the research
assistant was whether the social affordance category was needed to be expanded
with two subcategories. At last, we agreed that it was necessary to have the two
subcategories because one appeared about work demand and one about emotional
need.
The final scheme consisting of 3 main categories and 15 subcategories of
affordance is shown in Table 4.1. Three categories of constraints emerged from the
data that can be seen in Table 4.3. To delineate the data source, codes were used and
individual students for each comment were included as an example for the categories.
With respect to the computation of reliability, Cohens kappa is mostly used. but
the issue of the number of categories included is usually ignored, so it has been
suggested that two kappa statistics, one for the subcategory level and for the level of
the main categories that should be reported (Strijbos et al., 2006). Landis and Koch
(1977) proposed the Kappa coefficient of the results between the two independent
coders: 0.811.00 = almost perfect; 0.610.80 = substantial; 0.410.60 = moderate;
0.210.40 = fair; 0.000.20 = slight; and < 0.00 = poor. In this study, Cohens kappa
was computed for two samples. Both sample one and sample two consisted of 60.
Each sample contained different groups and was independently coded by two coders
54
(I and the research assistant). Cohens kappa was computed for the main category
level (sample 1, k=0.72; sample 2, k=0.75) and the subcategory level (sample 1,
k=0.68; sample 2, k=0.70). Aggregation of the samples resulted in a kappa of 0.70 on
the main category and subcategory level, which can be considered to be substantial.
To address the third research question, quantitative data was analyzed using
SPSS. Besides, focus group interviews were further analyzed to document the
findings.
55
4.1 Affordances
4.1.1 Findings of affordances
According to Table 4.1, five categories of educational affordances were identified.
The wiki was found to provide affordances for group project management, which
included scheduling, organizing and designating assignments. Group report coconstruction affordance referred to each students ability to participate in the
document revision at will. Information sharing affordance was noted as students
published links to sources of information, while knowledge sharing affordance
referred to students posts that included their insights and interpretations on a concept
or topic. Collaborative learning was also facilitated by feedback sharing affordance
56
57
Social
affordances
5. Feedback sharing
(Students are able to request and provide
feedback between each other.)
1. Communication
(Students can communicate online within a
platform.)
2. Motivation
We can see other groups work that encourages
(Students can enhance motivation among group us to work hard. (R-SH-5B-4-W)
members.)
58
Technological
affordances
1. Media
We can insert video and pictures into Google
(The ability to input and output various media Site. We can use multi-media to present our work
forms, such as text, images audio and video)
and then other students can understand our work
more easily. (I-CPS-5B-E)
2. Spatial
I create the part of materials on the sidebar, and
(The ability to resize, move or place contents then all the materials are added as links. I hope
this sidebar can help us to find the materials
within an interface)
easily.
(A-SH-5A-1-N)
3. Temporal
Google Sites allows us to do our work at home.
(The ability to access anytime anywhere as well We need not gather in front of one computer, or
as to record and play back information)
do it separately on our own computers using
read-only. (I-SH-5B-J)
4. Navigation
The side-bars are very user-friendly. I can just
(The ability to browse and search other sections click into any page that I want to see. (I-WSKof the interface, as well as to link and sort 5C-D)
sections)
5. Synthesis
I can synthesize other Google functions to create
(The ability to combine and integrate multiple a better collaborative environment. (I-GPS-5Bcomponents and create a mixed-media platform. K)
6. Access-control
Google Sites allows multi-users to amend the
(The ability to allow or deny access and documents. (I-SH-5B-J)
contributions)
Note: *The source number constitutes source type, school code, class number, group number and student code.
(Source type: I for group interviews, R for students reflections; and A for students activities)
59
Qualitative data sources included: (1) students reflections written on the wiki
pages (12 groups: 3 groups from KF, 1 group from CPS, 4 groups from SH and 4
groups from WSK), (2) students activities on the wiki platform (12 groups as above),
(3) focus group interviews (8 groups, 42 students: 9 students from KF, 5 students from
CPS, 11 students from SH and 17 students from WSK). The number of coding
references of affordances and their proportion in the above mentioned three categories
are summarized in Table 4.2. A total of 549 references to affordances were found: 79
from students responses to open-ended questions in focus group interviews, 63 from
students reflections written on the wiki pages, and 407 from students activities
recorded by wiki tracking system.
First of all, students responses to group interviews were coded and 79 references
were found referred to wiki affordances in all three categories. Among these, the most
prominently reported affordances were related to technological aspects (54.4%) as
shown in Table 4.2. Specially, media (10.1%) and temporal affordance (29.1%) were
most often reported. With respect to educational affordances, the analysis revealed
that the wiki allowed group report co-construction with simultaneous contributions for
collaborative work (7.6%), and provided a platform to share comments (7.6%). The
wiki was also found to provide a social affordance by serving as a platform for
communication (24%).
Secondly, students reflection posted on the wiki pages were coded, and from 63
coded references, educational affordances were found to be the most prominent (73%).
The top education affordance was that the wiki provided students with a platform to
60
co-construct their group reports (36.5%) manage their group projects (12.7%) and
share knowledge (12.7%). There were a small percentage of technological affordances
(15.9%), with most of them being media affordance (7.9%). References coded to
social affordances were distributed between communication (3.2%) and motivation
(7.9%).
Table 4.2: Wiki affordances found in different data resource
Affordance
Interview
Educational
1. Group project
management
1 (1.3%)*
8 (12.7%)
11 (2.7%)
20 (3.7%)
6 (7.6%)
23 (36.5%)
26 (6.4%)
55 (10%)
3. Information sharing
2 (2.5%)
0 (%)
32 (7.9%)
34 (6.2%)
4. Knowledge sharing
1 (1.3%)
8 (12.7%)
17 (4.2%)
26 (4.7%)
5. Feedback sharing
6 (7.6%)
7 (11.1%)
27(6.6%)
40 (7.3%)
16 (20.3%)
46(73%)
113 (27.8%)
175 (31.9%)
1.Communciation
19 (24%)
2 (3.2%)
15 (3.7%)
36 (6.6%)
2. Motivation
1(1.3%)
5 (7.9%)
7 (1.7%)
13 (2.3%)
20 (25.3%)
7(11.1%)
22 (5.4%)
49 (8.9%)
8 (10.1%)
2 (2.5%)
23 (29.1%)
4 (5.1%)
1 (1.3%)
5(6.3%)
5 (7.9%)
2 (3.2%)
0 (0%)
2 (3.2%)
0 (1.6%)
1 (0%)
251 (61.7%)
14 (3.4%)
0 (0%)
3 (0.7%)
2 (0.5%)
2 (0.5%)
264 (48.1%)
18 (3.3%)
23 (4.2%)
9 (1.6%)
3 (0.5%)
8 (1.5%)
Sub-total
43 (54.4%)
10(15.9%)
272 (66.8%)
325 (59.2%)
Total
79 (100%)
63(100%)
407 (100%)
549 (100%)
Sub-total
Social
Sub-total
Technological
1. Media
2. Spatial
3. Temporal
4. Navigation
5. Synthesis
6. Access control
Last but not least, a total of 407 references were coded from students activities
61
with Google Sites. These references were transcribed from actions and coded into the
affordance categories. Most of the references were centered on the technological
aspects, and more than half of the coded references were media affordances (61.7%).
This was also a large percentage of educational affordances (27.8%).
Education
affordance,
31.90%
Technology
affordance,
59.20%
Education affordance
Social affordance
Technology affordance
Social
affordance,
8.90%
which is the extent to which the CSCL environment is used by students in supporting
their collaborative group work, is determined by technological affordances (Vatrapu,
Suthers, & Medina, 2008). Our findings showed the evidence that supported the
usability of wikis as a CSCL environment. The observation of students online
activities highlighted the technological affordances. Consistently, throughout all
sources of data, media affordance was found to be the most prevalent. This is not
surprising since the primary function offered by wikis is the ability to combine
reading and writing within a web browser, and the wiki allows several users to create
and link web pages simultaneously (Lamb, 2004). Temporal affordance was reported
most during the interviews. For example, one student (I-SH-5B-F) reported, We can
share with each other at anytime and anywhere. We need not to write it down, or go to
others homes. This showed that students enjoyed this learning experience mostly
because they were able to carry out the project at their convenience. The synthesis
affordance is an important aspect of the wiki as a technological support for
collaborative learning, but it was less prominent in this study. This may be because
primary-school students have low combine-ability and integrate-ability.
Utility is determined by the combination of educational and social affordances
(Kirschner et al., 2004), and these two dimensions have been proposed as the core
educational affordances in designing CSCL environments (Bower, 2008). This current
study corroborates earlier findings and shows that wikis have been useful for similar
purposes of group project management and report construction through questionnairebased feedback (Chu & Kennedy, 2011). The wiki is able to provide these educational
63
64
4.2 Constraints
4.2.1 Findings of constraints
According to Table 4.3, three categories of constraints were founded. The
characteristics of a wiki that differentiate it from other forms of technology (e.g.,
word processing software, emails , telephone) appear to have been constraints since
students found that their relatively lower familiarity with the wiki discouraged them
from using it. Instead, learners were encouraged to revert back to the more familiar
forms of technology. The wiki formatting constraint refers to the distinct formatting
rules that students found problematic in the co-construction of materials. The internet
dependence constraint refers to the inability to contribute work without internet access,
as well as possible loss of data when the internet connection is unstable.
65
Category
Definition
Lower familiarity
Wiki formatting
system
Internet dependence
Note: *The source number constitutes source type, school code, class number, group number
and student code. (Source type: I for group interviews, R for students reflections;
and A for students activities)
Table 4.4 summarized the constraints that were identified from the coded
references from different data sources. Constraints were mostly revealed by the
students responses in the group interviews, with 38 coded references. The most often
reported constraint was related to the wiki formatting system (47.3%), followed by the
difference between the wiki and more familiar forms of technology (31.6%). For
students activities with Google Sites, 16 references were coded. Only two constraints
were found, lower familiarity (37.5%) and the wiki formatting and technical system
(63.5%). Few references were coded from students reflections on the wiki pages. The
wikis formatting system was found to be an obstacle to build wiki pages efficiently.
The users encountered difficulties in achieving the desired organization and
appearance of their wiki pages, and they generally attributed this to the formatting
system of the wiki. As such, it might be considered that the degree of constraint
66
associated with wikis formatting system might differ according to the distinct wiki
variants (e.g. Media Wiki, PB Works, TWiki).
Table 4.4: Wiki constraints found in different data resource
Number of coded references (%)
Interview
Activities
Reflection
Constraints
Sub-total
1. Lower familiarity
12 (31.6%)
6 (37.5%)
2 (40%)
20 (33.9%)
18 (47.3%)
10 (63.5%)
3 (60%)
31 (52.5%)
3. Internet dependence
8 (21.1%)
0 (0%)
0 (%)
8 (13.6%)
38 (100%)
16 (100%)
5 (100%)
59 (100%)
Sub-total
User-related constraints
Technology-related
constraints
User-related
constraints,
86.40%
Our findings showed that the distinction between the wiki and traditional forms
of technology was a constraint because of the users relatively greater familiarity with
67
the latter. When students perceived constraints, they could chose either to give up or
adapt this tool for their learning (Carroll, Howard, Peck, & Murphy, 2002).
Fortunately, students were found to adopt not a passive but an active attitude towards
constraints. Student (1-SH-5A-D), for example, said, I would choose Google Sites as
it allows us to use a more difficult tool to do projects that can train our brain. When
students were asked how they addressed the problem, two students reported that they
read the instructional manual, while others sought help from teachers and peers. This
highlights the fact that constraints are not necessarily negative attributes, but can be
perceived as obstacles to the effective use of functions (Murphy & Coffin, 2003) that
may enhance students learning. On the other hand, it implies that extra training
sessions could be scheduled, after students have been conducting their projects for 2-3
weeks, in which instructors can ask the students to demonstrate different tasks on the
wiki to increase students familiarity with the tool. Subject teachers should have
sufficient knowledge about wikis in order to assist students in the whole process.
Besides, the wikis formatting system was found to be an obstacle to efficiently
building wiki pages. The users encountered difficulties in achieving the desired
organization and appearance of their wiki pages, and they generally attributed this to
the formatting system of the wiki.
Additionally, the dependence of the wiki system on internet access was also a
constraint. While dependence on an internet connection might be related to the
temporal technological affordance that allows simultaneous contributions, students
reported problems of lost page revisions which were thought to have been saved.
68
Google Sites manages conflict handing by page locking, which results in having only
one user allowed to edit the pages at a particular time. Other systems like MediaWiki,
which is the system behind Wikipedia, manages conflict handing by SVN merging
(MediaWiki, 2012).
69
Motivation
Questions
70
384
M (SD)
Median
3.71 (1.294)
4.00
3.71 (1.224)
4.00
3.54 (1.245)
4.00
3.59 (1.341)
4.00
3.58 (1.360)
4.00
3.58 (1.357)
4.00
3.58 (1.289)
4.00
3.49 (1.247)
4.00
3.55 (1.361)
4.00
3.65(1.414)
4.00
Cronbachs
alpha
.870***
.863***
Group
Interaction
Technology
71
3.00
4.00
4.00
.864***
4.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
.848***
4.3.2 Discussion
Learners satisfaction with a CSCL environment is an important aspect of evaluation
and may be considered as an indicator of the extent of engagement that was facilitated
(Suthers, Vatrapu, Medina, Joseph, & Dwyer, 2008). While no cut-off point in the
scores have been established as an indicator of positive perceptions (Hazari et al.,
2009), the scores were all within the upper half of the total possible score. The
averages of the students ratings on all of the 20 statements were above 3.0, indicating
that students were positive about the influence of the wiki on their experiences. This
result is consistent with the findings of earlier studies that primary-school students are
positive about using a wiki for collaborative tasks (Li et al., 2012; Woo et al., 2011).
Focus group interviews were analyzed to further document the findings. Quotes from
the interviewees were extracted below to demonstrate their view towards Google Sites
on the four constructs.
Construct 2: Motivation
One of the anticipated challenges of implementing a wiki system with P5
students was the steep learning curve caused by the technical constraints, which could
have suppressed students enthusiasm in making use of the new technology for their
projects. However, students held positive opinion on the wiki as they generally agreed
that the benefits associated with the wiki outpaced the extra time and effort needed to
learn about it. According to the students reflections, it found that they cherished this
opportunity and expected more group work with a wiki(I-CPS-5B-M).
73
Construct 4: Technology
Notwithstanding the potential technical difficulties that they might encounter, the
students perceived the impact of the technology on their learning to be positive.
Students reported that the functions of wiki technology were user-friendly and helpful.
For example, when compared to the more traditional ways of completing a group
project, one student (I-KF-5B-A) commented that [In Google Sites] all group
members can do the group project at the same time, unlike Microsoft Word, [which] is
simpler and easier to manage. Another student (I-SH-5A-F) reported that [We] can
share with each other at anytime and anywhere. It is no need to write it down, or go to
others homes.
74
Chapter 5 Conclusion
The final chapter attempts to answer three questions: (1) did the research achieve the
research objective; (2) are there any theoretical and practical Implications; and (3)
what were the research limitations and research directions guiding future studies?
Thus, this chapter will review the objective of my research and the research methods
used to address the proposed research questions. A summary of the key findings will
follow with conclusions and implications. It will conclude with discussion on
limitations of the study and recommendations for further research.
75
system. The wiki as a platform for collaborative learning was evaluated using a survey.
Three different sources of qualitative data were used to identify affordances and
constrains.
76
were aimed for the collaborative PjBL task were achieved. These affordances of the
wiki fostered learning, which boosted learning motivation, developed knowledge
acquisition ability and improved compute and collaborative skills.
The second theme is constraints that students encountered. The study identified
constraints that were related either with the characteristics of the wiki technology
itself or with users disposition (See Figure 5.1). Nevertheless, students were found to
hold positive opinion on the wiki as they generally agreed that the benefits associated
with the wiki outpaced the extra time and effort needed to learn about it.
group project management
group project co-construction
educaitonal
affordance
information sharing
knowledge sharing
feedback sharing
social
affordance
Affordance
communication
motivation
media
spatial
Wiki as
collaborative PjBL
environment
technological
affordance
temporal
navigation
synthesis
access-control
technologicalrelated
constraint
Constraint
user-related
constraint
5.3 Implications
This is about the use of Wiki technology by young Chinese students in Hong Kong
77
78
79
games during using wiki. Thus, teachers may need to introduce them to this new
mode of learning and encourage parental participation.
80
research was not able to accommodate the time frame necessary for a reiterative
nature of design based research. Design based research (DBR) roots in the work of
Alan Collins (1992) and Ann Brown (1992) who conducted studies in naturalistic
settings to test and generate theory and practice by systemically adjusting various
aspects of the designed context. It results in iterative cycles of learning design,
implementation, evaluation, and redesign (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).
Design-based research has been shown to have potential to investigate innovative
learning environments in classroom settings, in which new educational technologies
or other complex approaches are used (Sandoval & Bell, 2004). An online
collaborative learning environment not only concerns about technology itself, but
includes people working together with the aim of solving a problem, a curriculum to
be studied, and the pedagogical practice in which project work is founded as an
activity of learning (Tolsby, 2009). Thus, using such a research method can (1) test
functional activities and refine along with the technology; (2) refine collaborative
contexts such as group size, group pattern and dialogic space throughout
interventional phase in research; (3) uncover unanticipated consequences on learning
and collaboration.
81
References
Abreu, P., Silva, D. C., Mendes, P., & Vinhas, V. (2009). The Impact of the usage of
wikis from a teacher/student perspective in an educational context.
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Science &
Education, 1325-1330.
Allen, M. (2009). Tim O' Reilly and Web 2.0: the economics of memetic liberty and
control. Communications, Politics and Culture, 42(2), 6-23.
Alloway, G., Bos, N., Hamel, K., Hammerman, T., Klann, E., Krajcik, J., . . . Wallace,
R. (1997). Creating an inquiry-learning environment using the World Wide
Web. Network and Compter Applications, 20(1), 75-85.
An, Y. (2010). Scaffolding wiki-based, ill-structured problem solving in an online
environment. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 1-11.
Arvaja, M., Hkkinen, P., & Kankaanranta, M. (2008). Collaborative learning and
computer-supported collaborative learning environment. In J. Voogt & G.
Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary
and Secondary Education (pp. 267279). LLC: Springer Science + Business
Media.
Augar, N., Raitman, R., & Zhou, W. L. (2004). From E-learning to virtual learning
community: bridging the gap. In W. Liu, Y. Shi & Q. Li (Eds.), Advances in
Web-Based Learning - ICWL2004 (pp. 301-308). Verlag Berlin / Heidelberg:
Spring.
Avci, U., & Askar, P. (2012). The comparison of the opinions of the university
students on the usage of blog and wiki for their courses. Educational
Technology & Society, 15(2), 194-205.
Barak, M., Herscoviz, O., Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). MOSAICA: a Web-2.0
based system for the preservation and presentation of cultural heritage.
Computers and Education, 53(3), 841-852.
Barnes, S. (2000). What does electronic conferencing afford distance education?
Distance Education, 21(2), 326-247.
Bean, J. C. (1996). Engaging ideas: the professor's guide to integrating writing,
critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
82
Beauchamp, G. (2012). ICT in the primary school from pedagogy to practice. Hong
Kong: Person Education Limited.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: skills for the future. The
Clearing House, 83, 39-43.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning. Buckingham: Society for Research
into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A.
(1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting
the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369-398.
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis--matching learning tasks with learning
technologies. Educational Media International, 45(1), 3-15.
Bower, M. (2011). Redesigning a Web-conferencing environment to scaffold
computing students' creative design processes. Educational Technology &
Society, 14(1), 27-42.
Bower, M., Woo, K., Roberts, M., & Watters, P. (2006). Wiki pedagogy - a tale of
two wikis. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information
Technology Based Higher Education and Training, 209-220.
Bowman, J., Holmes, A., & Swan, K. (1999). Virtual teacher education: affordances
and constraints of teaching teachers online. In J. Price, J. Willis, D. A. Willis,
M. Jost & S. Boger-Mehall (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 1999 (pp. 278283). Chesapeake, VA: Association for Advancement of Computing in
Education.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: definition, history and
scholarship. Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230.
Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1999). Collaborative learning and computersupported groups. Communication Education, 48, 109-126.
Brett, P., & Nagra, J. (2005). An investigation into students use of a computer-based
social learning space: Lessons for facilitating collaborative approaches to
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 281292.
Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative
learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 13-23.
83
86
Glassman, M., & Kang, M. J. (2011). The logic of wikis: The possibilities of the Web
2.0 classroom. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 93-112.
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of
Technology Education, 7(1), 2230.
Google. (2011). Overview of Google Sites Retrieved March 2, 2012, from
http://www.google.com/sites/help/intl/en-GB/overview.html
Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: theory, cases and
recommendations. Meridian, 5(1), 1-17.
Greeno, J. (1994). Gibsons affordances. Psychological Review, 101, 336-342.
Grgoire, R., & Laferrire, T. (1999). Project-based collaborative learning with
networked computers-teachers guide Retrieved Oct. 12, 2011, from
http://www.tact.fse.ulaval.ca/ang/html/projectg.html
Hamat, A., & Embi, M. A. (2010). Constructivism in the design of online learning
tools. European Journal of Educational Studies 2(3), 2010, 2(3), 237-246.
Harasim, L. M. (1993). Collaborating in cyberspace using computer conferences as a
group learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 119130.
Harris, H. J., & Katz, L. G. (2001). Young investigators: The project approach in the
early years. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hathorn, L. G., & Ingram, A. L. (2002). Cooperation and collaboration using
computer-mediated communication. Educational Computing Research, 26(3),
325-247.
Hazari, S., North, A., & Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating pedagogical value of wiki
technology. Information Science, 20(2), 187-198.
Helle, L., Tynjala, P., & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in postsecondary education: theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher
Education, 51(2), 287-314.
Heo, H., Lim, K. Y., & Kim, Y. (2010). Exploratory study on the patterns of online
interaction and knowledge co-construction in project-based learning.
Computers & Education, 55, 1383-1392.
Herrick, D. R., & Collins, F. (2009). Google this!: using Google apps for
88
90
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computersupported collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology &
Society, 5(1), 8-22.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social
interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a
review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 335353.
Krogstie, B. R. (2008). The wiki as an integrative tool in project work Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems.
Kubiatko, M., & Vaculov, I. (2011). Project-based learning: characteristic and the
experiences with application in the science subjects. Energy Education
Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 3(1), 65-74.
Kuhlthau, C. C., Maniotes, L. K., & Caspari, A. K. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning
in the 21st century. Portsmouth, NH: Libraries Limited.
Lai, M., & Law, N. (2006). Peer scaffolding of knowledge building through
collaborative groups with differential learning experiences. Educational
Computing Research 35(2), 123-144.
Lamb, B. (2004). Wide open spaces: wikis, ready or not. Educause Review, 39(5), 3648.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for
categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
Larruson, J. A., & Alterman, R. (2009). Wikis to support the "collaborative" part of
collaborative learning. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 371402.
Lee, H., & Wang, P. (2013). Discussing the factors contributing to students'
involvement in an EFL collaborative wiki project. ReCALL, 25, 233-249.
Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for Intermediate Statistics
(2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ.
Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The Wiki way : quick collaboration on the Web.
Boston, Mass. :: Addison-Wesley.
Leuf, B., & Cunningham, W. (2001). The wiki way: quick collaboration on the Web.
Boston: Addison-Wesley.
91
93
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
OReilly, T. (2004). Opening welcome: The state of the Internet industry. Paper
presented at the Web 2.0 Conference, San Francisco, CA.
http://conferences.oreillynet.com/pub/w/32/presentations.html
OReilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0 - Design patterns and business models for the
next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 17-37.
Panitz, T. (n.d.). Collaborative versus cooperative learning- A comparison of the two
concepts which will help us understand and the underlying nature of
interactive learning Retrieved June 20, 2014, from
http://home.capecod.net/~tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm
Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, 57-70.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol 2): A
third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Piaget, J. (1976). The grasp of consciousness: Action and concept in the young child.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pifarre, M., & Staarman, J. K. (2011). Wiki-supported collaborative learning in
primary education: How a dialogic space is created for thinking together.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(2),
187-205.
Polman, J. (1996). Bootstrapping a community of practice: learning science by doing
projects in a high school classroom. Proceedings of International Conference
on the Learning Sciences, 474-479.
Poore, M. (2013). Using social media in the classroom. London: SAGE.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions,
comparisons, and research bases. Engineering Education, 95, 123-138.
Puntambekar, S., & Hbscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex
learning environment: what have we gained and what have we missed?
Education Psychologist, 40(1), 1-12.
Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designing knowledge management
systems for teaching and learning with wiki technology. Journal of
94
Strijbos, J. M., Kirschner, P., & Martens, R. L. (2004). What we know about CSCL
and implementing it in high education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Strijbos, J. M., Martens, R. L., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2004). Designing for
interaction: six steps to designing computer-supported group-based learning.
Computers & Education, 42, 403-424.
Strijbos, J. M., Martens, R. L., Jochems, W. M. G., & Broers, N. J. (2007). The effect
of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported
collaborative learning: a matter of triangulation. Computers in Human
Behavior, 23, 353-380.
Strijbos, J. M., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2006). Content
Analysis: What Are They Talking About? Computers and Education, 46(1),
29-48.
Su, A. Y. S., Yang, S. J. H., Hwang, W.-Y., & Zhang, J. (2010). A Web 2.0-based
collaborative annotation system for enhancing knowledge sharing in
collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 55, 752-766.
Suthers, D. D., Vatrapu, R., Medina, R., Joseph, S., & Dwyer, N. (2008). Beyond
threaded discussion: representational guidance in asynchronous collaborative
learning environments. Computers & Education, 50(4), 11031127.
Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J.
C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education, Practice and
Direction (pp. 13-45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.
The Curriculum Development Council. (2011). General Studies for primary schools
curriculum guides (Primary 1- Primary 6) Retrieved Mar. 3, 2012, from
http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_2850/gs%20curr%20guide_
e.pdf
Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. I. (2006). The many faces of collaborative
planning and teaching. Theory into Practice, 45, 239-248.
Tolsby, H. (2009). Virtual environment for project based collaborative learning. In L.
Dirckinck-Holmfeld, C. Jones & B. Lindstrm (Eds.), Analysing networked
learning practices in higher education and continuing professional
development. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Trautschold, M., Mazo, G., & Karch, M. (2011). Droid made simple: for the droid,
droid x, droid 2 and droid 2 global. New York: Springer Science Business
Media.
97
Vatrapu, R., Suthers, D. D., & Medina, R. (2008). Usability, sociability, and
learnability: a CSCL design evaluation framework. Proceedings of the 16th
International Conference on Computers in Education.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, J., Zou, B., Wang, D., & Xing, M. (2013). Students' perception of a wiki
platform and the impact of wiki engagement on intercultural communication.
System, 41, 245-256.
Webb, N. M. (1995). Group collaboration in assessment: multiple objectives,
processes, and outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2),
239-261.
Webb, N. M., & Palincsar, A. S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D. C.
Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2002). Fostering computer supported
collaborative learning with cooperation scripts and scaffolds. Proceedings of
the Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning:
Foundations for a CSCL Community, 573-574.
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.
Williams van Rooij, S. (2009). Scaffolding project-based learning with the project
management body of knowledge Computers and Education, 52(1), 210-219.
Witney, D., & Smallbone, T. (2011). Wiki work: can using wikis enhance student
collaboration for group assignment tasks? Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 48(1), 101-110.
Woo, M. (2013). Collaborative writing with a wiki in upper primary English
language classrooms. PhD Dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong.
Woo, M., Chu, S., Ho, A., & Li, X. X. (2011). Using a wiki to scaffold primary
school students collaborative writing. Educational Technology & Society 14
(1), 43-54.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving.
98
99
Appendices
Appendix 1: Focus Group Interview Questions (In English)
1.
Do you think Google Sites is better or worse than previously tools that you have
used (such as Word) for doing group projects? Why?
2.
Do you think Google Sites has helped you and your group project? Why?
3.
Do you think it is better to receive comments from peers and teacher than only
from teacher?
4.
Do you think the communication among your classmates is very helpful for
your working?
5.
Did you encounter any difficulty when using Google Sites during the group
project? How did you deal with them?
6.
Do you think teachers have helped you when you had problems? Why?
7.
Will you want to do group project with a wiki in the future? Why?
100
6.
7. Google Sites
101
Please select the best choice for each statement given below. There is no right or wrong answer.
You have choices of: 5: Strongly Agree; 4: Agree; 3. Neutral; 2: Disagree, 1: Strongly Disagree; 0: I dont know.
I
dont
know
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
102
Strongly
disagree
Strongly
agree
103
:_____________
. ____________________
5 4 3 2 1 0
Q1
Google Sites
Q2
Google Sites
Q3
Google Sites
Q4
Google Sites
Q5
Google Sites
Q6
Google Sites
Q7
Google Sites
104
Q8
Google Sites
Q9
Google Sites
Q10
Google Sites
Q11
Google Sites
Q12
Google Sites
Q13
Google Sites
Q14
Google Sites
Q15
Google Sites
Q16
Google Sites
Q17
Google Sites
Q18
Google Sites
Q19
Google Sites
Q20
Google Sites
105
2. Chu, S. K. W., Fong, C. S., Hui, O. S., Law, H. C., Yu, C. T., Lee, C. W. Y., & Fu, H. J.
(2012). Teaching guide on collaborative learning: Primary 4 inquiry project based learning in
General Studies. Hong Kong: In-service Teacher Education Programme (INSTEP). In Chinese
(2012)
3. Fu, H. J., Chu, S. K. W., & Kang, W. X. (2011).The affordances of wiki for primary-school
students group project work. Paper presented at the International Conference on Addressing
Student Learning Diversity (ASLD), Hong Kong.
106