Title

Using Wiki technology for primary-school students'

collaborative projects : affordances, constraints and evaluation

Advisor(s)

Churchill, D; Chu, SKW

Author(s)

Fu, Huijuan;

Citation

Issued Date

URL

Rights

2013

http://hdl.handle.net/10722/202372

Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License

The University of Hong Kong

Pokfulam Road, HONG KONG

Using Wiki Technology for Primary-school Students

Collaborative Projects: Affordances, Constraints and Evaluation

By Huijuan FU
()

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

the degree of Master of Philosophy
at the University of Hong Kong

August 2013

Abstract of Thesis entitled

Using Wiki Technology for Primary-school Students

Collaborative Projects: Affordances, Constraints and Evaluation

Submitted by

Huijuan FU ()
For the degree of Master of Philosophy
at The University of Hong Kong
in July 2014

The project-based collaboration setting is becoming increasingly common at different

educational levels. Recent years have witnessed the rising use of wikis as computersupported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments. However, reports on the
application of wiki technology in facilitating collaborative projects at the primary
level are few; in particular, information on the affordances and constraints of wikis at
this learning stage is limited. Such information is essential for educators when
planning and implementing wikis as an effective educational tool.
This study aimed to introduce wiki technology to facilitate collaborative projectbased learning (Collaborative PjBL) in a primary General Studies (GS) course and
to explore the associated affordances and constraints. A total of 388 Hong Kong
Primary-five (P5) students from 4 local Chinese primary schools used a wiki for their
i

social science group project during their GS course. Adopting a mixed-method

approach, a combination of qualitative and quantitative data were collected, including
focus group interviews, students activities within the wiki platform, students
reflections written on the wiki pages, and a questionnaire. These data were used to
explore the affordances and constraints of the wiki for collaborative projects as
perceived by the primary-school students, and to gain an understanding of students
attitudes towards and perceptions of the wiki in general.
The findings showed that the wiki provided five kinds of educational affordances,
six kinds of technological affordances, and two kinds of social affordances. The
affordances that were aimed for the collaborative PjBL task were therefore achieved.
At the same time, constraints were found to be related to technological factors and
users dispositions. To counterbalance constraints, teachers could select wiki variants
and provide more scaffolding on the use of wiki during the process of project
completion. Students attitudes and perceptions towards the wiki were found to be
strongly positive after the group project implementation.
The research contributes to our understanding of the use of a form of social
media, wiki technology, in primary education. On a theoretical level, it deepens
previous research by identifying the categories of the wikis affordances and
constraints for primary-school students collaborative PjBL. On a practical level, the
pedagogical implications derived from this study may provide guidelines for primaryschool educators to plan collaborative PjBL activities with wiki technology.
(366 words)

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.

Signed .........................Huijuan FU......................................

Huijuan FU ()
July 2014

iii

This thesis is dedicated to:

my parents, husband and daughter

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

3.4 INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN ...................................................................................... 41

3.4.1 Grouping.................................................................................................................... 42
3.4.2 A collaborative teaching model for scaffolding ............................................. 43
3.5 DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................... 48
3.5.1 Quantitative data source ........................................................................................... 48
3.5.2 Qualitative data source ............................................................................................. 49
3.6 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................... 53
4.1 AFFORDANCES ..................................................................................................... 56
4.1.1 Findings of affordances............................................................................................. 56
4.1.2 Discussion of affordances......................................................................................... 62
4.2 CONSTRAINTS ...................................................................................................... 65
4.2.1 Findings of constraints .............................................................................................. 65
4.2.2 Discussion of constraints .......................................................................................... 67
4.3 STUDENTS ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS ............................................................ 69
4.3.1 Results of the survey................................................................................................... 69
4.3.2 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 72
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 75
5.1 Objective of the research .............................................................................................. 75
5.2 Key findings ..................................................................................................................... 77
5.3 Implications...................................................................................................................... 77
5.4 Limitations and further studies................................................................................... 80
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 82
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... 100
Appendix 1: Focus Group Interview Questions (In English) .................................. 100
Appendix 2: Focus Group Interview Questions (In Chinese) ................................. 101
Appendix 3: Wiki Perceptual Survey (In English) ...................................................... 102
Appendix 4: Wiki Perceptual Survey (In Chinese) ..................................................... 104
Appendix 5: Publications in support of this thesis .................................................... 106
vii

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

Information and Communications Technology

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.

1.1 Background of the research

As constructivism becomes a widely accepted learning theory, education has been
undergoing a paradigm shift moving away from teaching-centred instruction to
student-centred learning (Ramsden, 1992; Witney & Smallbone, 2011). The central
notion of constructivist learning approaches is to acknowledge learners engagement
in the active learning process and in knowledge construction (Poore, 2013). Social
constructivism places great emphasis on social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978).
Classroom research has demonstrated that individuals acquire knowledge and skills
through group interaction (Gokhale, 1995). One social constructivism learning
approach that has been promoted is collaborative leaning (Dillenbourg & Schneider,
1995). Collaborative learning is important across all educational levels from the
primary to the tertiary level as it seems to be a crucial factor in academic achievement,
personal development, and student satisfaction (Elgort, Smith, & Toland, 2008). It can
not only enable students to build on their knowledge and skill to a higher level of
development, but also can help students develop skills in jobs and professional
situations after graduation (Knowles & Hennequin, 2004; Wood, Bruner, & Ross,
1976). As such, collaboration and communication skills has been included as one of
1

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

new technologies may help motivate students to engage in interactive learning

(Schrand, 2008).
Researchers in recent years have witnessed the increasing use of social media as
computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments (Joosten, 2012).
CSCL places emphasis on how computer technology can support collaborative
learning to enhance members interaction (Cho, Stefanone, & Gay, 2002; Lipponen,
2002). Social media provides opportunities to develop CSCL environments that
attracted learners to participate in collaborative learning context to share,
communicate, collaborate, and learn from their collaborators (Barak, Herscoviz,
Kaberman, & Dori, 2009; Su, Yang, Hwang, & Zhang, 2010).
Wiki technology is one of the more widely explored social media in schools,
colleges and universities (Parker & Chao, 2007; Raman, Ryan, & Olfman, 2005).
Most of the educational benefits of social media apply to wikis. But because wiki
technology has an active role in compelling students to work together, it has been
predicted as a new and most effective form of software capable of supporting the
collaborative learning environment (Avci & Askar, 2012; Feng & Beaumont, 2010;
Wang, Zou, Wang, & Xing, 2013). A growing number of researchers have been
investigated the application of wikis, explored their effects on student learning, and
assessed their effectiveness for instruction at different levels across different subject
disciplines. The findings demonstrated that wikis are mostly preferred for
collaborative tasks, capable of prompting student interaction and engaging students
effectively in learning and knowledge construction with peers (Augar, Raitman, &

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.

1.2 Statement of the problem

The rapid changes of information and communication technology (ICT) has brought
innovations in education, but it is a relatively short time that ICT has taken its place in
the curriculum of the primary school (Beauchamp, 2012). Social media is one type
and part of the changes in ICT. The Education Bureau of Hong Kong has proposed to
use social media in its Consultation Document on the Third Strategy on Information
Technology at primary level in order to facilitate positive changes in teaching and
learning process (2007). Although the collaborative nature of wikis and their
simplicity make them a good candidate tool for collaborative tasks by younger
children, this type of research is still scarce and in its infancy. Thus, more empirical
research is needed to explore how wikis may be able to facilitate collaborative
learning in primary education.
To date, a number of studies have reported that the wiki technique supports
teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes. However, most studies have claimed
that wikis leads to better learning outcomes, but they are unable to identify the
specific affordances of wiki. There is limited information on the nature of the
interaction between the student and wiki that presumably facilitated learning and on
the affordances and constraints in wiki (Elgort et al., 2008). Therefore, more studies
are needed to stress on the affordances of CSCL environments that are diverging from
5

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.

1.3 Research questions

This study aimed to present a systematic study of student experience towards the use
of a wiki during their collaborative learning in the context of group project. Three
specific research questions (RQ) were posed to guide data collection:
RQ1: What are the affordances of the wiki that primary-school students
perceived and used for their group project?
RQ2: What are the constraints that influence primary-school students perception
and use of the wiki for their group project?
RQ3: What are primary-school students attitude and perception towards the
pedagogical use of wiki?

1.4 Significance of the research

Until now, the number of empirical studies regarding social media integration into
instruction at primary level remains sparse. This research is intended to deepen our
understanding of CSCL and educational uses of social media in primary education
through empirical exploration of student experience. The findings of this study will
7

contribute to the literature on the potential of wikis in collaborative group projects in

primary education. Specifically, beyond investigating students attitudes and
perceptions, it explores the affordances and constraints of wiki and elaborates the
underlying process of primary-school students using a wiki in collaborative projects.
Moreover, identification of the affordances and constraints of wikis can clarify
the underlying factors that make wiki effective or ineffective in facilitating
collaborative student learning. This can also offer us a deeper understanding of the
relationship between designing wiki-based learning activities and student experience
of using this technology, which will contribute to the development of wikis and even
other social media towards a more effective online platform for students
collaborative learning.
In addition, designing and implementing a CSCL environment, in itself, is a
pedagogical process. Studying student experience in such a process can help uncover
important aspects of CSCL and may provide more direct learning benefits related to
teaching and learning. Consequently this may improve teachers practice and better
prepares them for teaching. Primary-school educators, who have a good
understanding of the pedagogy, the setting and the learners in this study, have great
potential to fully utilize the affordances and counterbalance the constraints of wiki
technology in orchestrating project-based collaboration setting, which is conduce to
students learning.

1.5 Structure of the thesis

This dissertation is organized into five major chapters. Chapter 1 introduces what the
research is about; and what the research problems, questions and significance are.
Chapter 2 presents the literature review that informs the rationales and theoretical
framework for undertaking this study. Chapter 3 provides a detailed introduction to
the methodology, including research method, participants, instructional design, as
well as data collection and analysis. The findings are reported and discussed in
chapter 4. The conclusions of the research are outlined in the final chapter, along with
contributions, implications, limitations and some thoughts on the future studies.

CHAPTER 2: Literature Review

Many research studies have started to hinge on the application of social media in
education, especially with one of the collaborative tools, the wiki. The literature
review attempts to examine research on the theoretical and practical rationale for this
relatively new technology with application to educational settings for primary-school
students in a collaborative PjBL environment. The literature explored for this research
falls into three main broad paradigms: CSCL, PjBL and the application of wiki
technology (see Figure 2.1). The first of these focuses on collaborative learning and
the framework to design and evaluate CSCL environments; the second identifies the
relationship between collaborative learning and PjBL; and the third presents the
educational benefits of wikis and current research on the use of them for
Collaborative PjBL.

Figure 2.1: Diagram of the research area

Note: Adapted from Woos (2013) diagram of the research area

10

2.1 Computer-supported collaborative learning

2.1.1 Collaborative learning
Collaborative learning refers to a situation in which students working as a group for a
particular academic goal (Dillenbourg, 1999; Gokhale, 1995). Individuals build on
their knowledge and skill through social interaction with others, who provide them
with learning support for constant progress (Wood et al., 1976). In a learning
environment, scaffolding can be provided not only by teachers but also by peers
(Puntambekar & Hbscher, 2005). Research has shown that peers engaging in pair or
group work are able to support each other in the processes of knowledge building (Lai
& Law, 2006), critical thinking (Sharma & Hannafin, 2005) and problem-solving
(Fawcett & Garton, 2005). As such, peer interactions that ensue from a collaborative
approach represent an important component of the learning experience (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). In this regard, learners should be given the opportunity to participate
in activities that encourages social interaction.
Group learning has been intensively studied since the 1970s, which has been
increasingly emphasized on broader learning sciences (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers,
2006; Strijbos, Martens, & Jochems, 2004). Group learning has been grounded in
constructivism, which advocates learning as individual experience and reconstruction
of personal understanding about the world (MacGregor, 1990). The evolution of
collaborative learning has paralleled with a shift of attention from constructivism to
social constructivism (Salomon, 1992). Earlier studies of learning in groups treats
learning as an individual process while collaborative learning based on the social

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

Knowledge is constructed by the

Knowledge is socially constructed

individual through active

through dialogue and collaboration.

discovery.
Definition of

Students build and apply their

Students socially build, share and

learning

own knowledge.

agree upon knowledge.

Key theorist

Piaget (1976)

Vygotsky (1978)

Learning

Collecting unorganized

Exchanging and sharing notions

Strategies

information from the world and

with others, ideas are formed and

create concepts and principles.

thinking occurs.

Personal discovery of

Learning is a social construction,

General
Orientation

knowledge.

mediated by different

Teachers provide instructional

context for active and selfregulated students

Implications
for leaning

perspectives.
Teachers provide for facilitation

and scaffolds among students.

Active construction and

integration of concepts

Conceptual development through

collaborative activity

Ill-structured problems

Ill-structured problems

Opportunities for reflection

Opportunity for discussion and

Ownership of the task

reflection
Shared ownership of the task

Implications
for teaching

Interactive environments and

appropriate challenges

Collaborative environments and

appropriate challenges

Encourage experimentation

and the discovery of principles

Adopt teaching to existing

Encourage experimentation and

share discovery
Drew on existing concepts/ skills
Scaffold and social skills

concepts/ skills
Coach an model meta-

cognitive skills

12

While constructivism focuses on cognitive development as an individual process,

suggesting individuals construct new knowledge from their experiences through the
processes of accommodation and assimilation, social constructivism holds that
learning is fundamentally social in nature, stressing the importance of social
interaction and activity sharing in individuals' construction of knowledge and
understanding (Cole & Wertsch, 1996). Based on Hamat and Embi (2010) as well as
Mayes and de Freitas (2004), the differences between constructivism and social
constructivism may be summarized as Table 2.1.
To better understand collaborative learning, there is a need to have an
understanding of cooperative and collaborative learning. Collaborative is sometimes
used very loosely and in many notions, it has been regarded similar to cooperative.
Cooperative learning has been long established as an effective educational approach
where cooperative learners achieve better learning outcomes than those who work
individually or competitively (Johnson, Johnson, & Gabbert, 1986; Slavin, 1996). The
literature seems to reveal more similarities than differences between collaborative
learning and cooperative learning. Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1991) identify
five basic elements necessary for a procedure to be considered cooperative: (1)
positive interdependence, (2) face-to-face promotive interaction, (3) individual
accountability, (4) interpersonal and small group skills, and (5) group processing.
Panitz (n.d.) considers that in practical classroom situations, many of these elements
of cooperative learning can be used in collaborative situations. According to
Kirschner (2001), these two concepts share lots of common elements: (1) learning is

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:

Figure 2.2: A set-based model of collaboration

(Note: an inner set is essential to the outer set)

14

i. Communication is a process of sending or exchanging information, which is

one of the core requirements for carrying out collaboration.
ii. Contribution is an informal relationship by which individuals help each other
in achieving their personal goals.
iii. Coordination is a process of connecting different agents together for a
harmonious action. During this process, the involved agents may share resources,
responsibilities, and goals.
iv. Cooperation is a relationship in which different agents with similar interests
take part in planning activities, negotiating roles, and sharing resources to achieve
joint goals. In addition to coordination, cooperation involves all the agents
following some rules of interaction.
v. Collaboration is a process involving various individuals that may see different
aspects of a problem. They engage in a process through which they can go
beyond their own individual expertise and vision by constructively exploring
their differences and searching for common solutions toward their common goal.
Strijbos, et al (2004) argue that differentiating them based on task-division is
rather superficial, which are hardly made explicit in the implications and effects in
advance. However, Stahl, Koschmann and Suthers (2006) debate that this is a
significant difference with respect to learning. As they point out:
Learning in cooperative groups is viewed as something that takes place
individuallyand can therefore be studied with the traditional conceptualizations
and methods of educational and psychological research. By contrast, learning
occurs socially as the collaborative construction of knowledge. Of course,
individuals are involved in this as members of the group, but the activities that
they engage in are not individual-learning activities, but group interactions like
negotiation and sharing. The collaborative negotiation and social sharing of group
meaningsphenomena central to collaborationcannot be studied with
traditional psychological methods. (p. 3)

15

In my study with wiki supported learning environments, it seems appropriate to

use the term collaborative learning based on social constructivist paradigm. Group
members were supposed to produce a single unified group paper that represents the
shared reasoning and conclusions of the group as unit. This learning process demands
group interactions including negotiation and sharing. It also echoes the statement of
Shah (2012), this is, collaboration involves developing a common understanding and
creating a solution that is more than merely the sum of each partys contribution.

2.1.2 Collaborative learning supported by computer technology

Using technology to support collaborative learning is an emerging field of study
which researches deem as the emerging paradigm of computer-supported
collaborative learning [CSCL] (Resta & Laferrire, 2007, p. 67). CSCL arose in the
1990s, which is a paradigm of instructional technology to combine the ideas of
computer support and collaborative learning (Koschmann, 1996). CSCL focuses on
how collaborative learning supported by technology can enhance peer interaction and
group learning processes and hence facilitates knowledge sharing and distributing
(Lipponen, 2002). The meaning of support is that CSCL implementation is not
limited to introducing a new technological environment, but rather that it requires the
alignment of technology with learning/teaching objectives which is not readily
accomplished in technical environment (Strijbos, Kirschner, & Martens, 2004, p.
250).
Computer technology is a central element of CSCL development and research.
The exciting potential of new technology to support people for communication and
16

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.

2.1.3 Affordance and constraint

The theoretical framework for this study is grounded in the theory of affordance
specifically applied to educational technology. The affordances of technology is
particularly and directly applicable in take into consideration how you are going to
differentiate activities for students at different levels or in different subjects (Loveless,
2002).
CSCL environment has been described as systems of interacting elements, which
may or may not afford the emergence of interactions that are supportive of the
acquisition of target competencies (Kirschner et al., 2004). The theory of affordance
has been formally adopted in the field of CSCL by Kirschner, et al as a framework for
the purpose of designing and evaluating CSCL environments. It has been increasingly
used to describe how online technologies interact with the other elements in order to
achieve the desired effective student interactions in a collaborative learning approach
18

(Day & Lloyd, 2007). In the meantime, exploration of affordances remains

incomplete without the examination of constraints (Greeno, 1994). This research
argues that a deep understanding of both the affordances and constraints is essential to
obtain a comprehensive characterization of the interactions between a wiki-supported
collaborative learning environment and its user.

2.1.3.1 The theory of affordance

Originally coined by Gibson (1977), the term affordance refers to a relation
naturally existing between the attributes of an object and the characteristics of the user.
It provides a direct approach to perceiving the value and meaning of objects or
environments that afford users to perform particular actions. The other frequently
cited proponent is Norman, who defines this term as the perceived and actual
properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine just how
the thing could possibly be used (1988, p. 9).
As indicated above, the different point between them is that Gibsons definition
refers to utility, while Normans emphasis on perception refers to usability and not
just utility (Bower, 2008). As distinguished by Nielsen (1994), utility represents the
functionality that a system provides a user while usability concerns how well the user
can actually use the functionality towards achieving a task. Besides, utility is of
primary consideration in designing learning technologies, while usability is an
important aspect of evaluation of learning environment. As such, Gibson focuses upon
the fundamental characteristics of the object in relation to the user which is more
suitable in discriminating how technologies can be applied to design learning tasks
19

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

2.1.3.2 The concept of constraint

In the meantime, we have to be aware that a delicate balance between affordances and
constraints exists in any form of technology (Sherry, 2000). Scardamalia and Bereiter
(2008) assume that technology used to mediate pedagogy is seldom neutral. They
point out that every technology encourages certain actions (the implication also being
that it impedes or constrains others), thus bringing into the learning interaction
pedagogical bias of one kind or another. It has been proposed that the usefulness of
affordance theory can be enhanced by considering online technologies as having
potential affordances that can be actualized through contextual factors whether to
promote or constrain them (Day & Lloyd, 2007).
A more comprehensive characterization of the interactions between an object and
its user has been made possible by exploring the related concept of constraint, such as
21

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).

2.2 Project-based collaboration

2.2.1 Project-based learning
Nowadays, projects play a large role in the context of educational environments
because the project method is seen as a way to reach education goal (Parker & Chao,
2007). The project method introduced by Kilpatrick (1918 as cited inMarkham,
Larmer, & Ravit, 2003, p. 3) is an instructional approach that engages students in
learning knowledge and skills through an extended inquiry process structured around
complex, authentic questions and carefully designed products and tasks. Sola and
Ojo (2007) have assessed and compared the relative effectiveness of project, inquiry
or lecture-demonstration method on senior secondary students achievement. The
results showed that the project method enhanced better performance better than the
other two methods. In view of the results, this study concluded that the use of project
method can motivate the learners better to want to learn which should be embraced by
all teachers.
22

PjBL appears to be an effective educational strategy used by teachers worldwide

to this day, mostly in university for promoting student learning. PjBL is an essential
model embodying the constructivist perspective of learning in educational settings
(Harris & Katz, 2001; Milentijevic, Ciric, & Vojinovic, 2008). According to Dewey
(1916), ideas and knowledge come only from a situation where learners have to draw
them out of experiences that have meaning and significance to them. The
constructivist approach in teaching helps students: (1) construct knowledge by
engaging them in stimulating learning encounters and through these experiences and
thus forming a personal perspective of the world with the knowledge they already
know (Kuhlthau, Maniotes, & Caspari, 2007), and (2) actively develop their
understanding by combining their knowledge with reasoning and thinking skills
(National Science Education Standards, 2007). PjBL facilitates the development of
ownership by affording learners the opportunity to select topics and take
responsibility of their own learning (Alloway et al., 1997; Worthy, 2000). It
encourages learners to resolve realistic life problems with in-depth investigation in
order to gain deep understanding of the facts and key concepts in the subject matter,
rather than learning by rote (Grant, 2002; Williams van Rooij, 2009).
PjBL is individual or group activity that goes on over a period of time to
complete a complex and open-ended task, resulting in a tangible product such as design,
written report, presentation and performance (Helle, Tynjala, & Olkinuora, 2006;
Prince & Felder, 2006). Jung, Jun, and Gruenwald (2001) classify the values of PjBL
including the following aspects:

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.

PjBL provides opportunities for interdisciplinary learning. Students apply and

integrate the content of different subject areas at authentic moments in the
production process, instead of in isolation or in an artificial setting.

Students project production, which includes documentation of the learning

process as well as the students final projects, can be shared with other teachers,
parents, mentors, and the business community who all have a stake in the students
education.

2.2.2 Collaborative project-based learning

There has been an increasing interest in collaborative learning using group projects
across most disciplines (Nicol & MacLeod, 2004). Group project encourages students
to work together over a considerable length of time to explore an open-ended theme
or problems which interested them (Harada, Kirio, & Yamamoto, 2008). This requires
collaborative investigation where team members need to plan, implement, and coordinate their activities and to share information and knowledge (Laffey, Tupper,
Musser, &Wedman, 1998). This process promotes collaborative learning, which in
turn, collaborative learning is a learning technique through which students working as
a group to create a project (Gokhale, 1995). As such, PjBL and collaborative learning

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.

2.3 Wiki technology

The potential of social media in facilitating positive changes in educational processes
has been articulated and wiki technology has come more to the forefront among the
review of the social media research (Avci & Askar, 2012). Wiki derived from the
26

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

2.3.1 Educational benefits of wikis

In the early 2000s, educators have been explored the potentials of wikis. An (2010, p.
3) notes the use of wikis in varied activities including, brainstorming, knowledge
construction, project planning, problem solving, resource sharing, case libraries,
assignment submission, presentations, and community building. Wikis are very
useful tools for educational purposes. The educational benefits of wikis can be
summarized as follows (Poore, 2013): (1) collaboration, negation, and teamwork; (2)
tracking development in knowledge construction and comprehension via history
function; (3) synthesis of research and streamlining group projects; (4) easy sharing of
information and knowledge; (5) structuring and presentation of knowledge is explicit;
(6) improving writing skills; (7) promoting communication, appropriate online
behavior, engagement in the community and high-order thinking; and (8) extending
audience.
Besides understanding the affordances and constraints, the evaluation of wikis
may well benefit from gaining feedback from users. The evaluation of educational
technology based on users feedback has been found to be relevant in technology
selection to a certain extent (Bower, 2008). Based on studies that explored qualitative
feedback, wikis have been found to be initially daunting for students, but were
eventually able to transform their methods of learning (Abreu, Silva, Mendes, &
Vinhas, 2009; Wheeler, Yeomans, & Wheeler, 2008). Quantitative studies seem to
indicate that studies give positive feedback on the usefulness of wiki technology as a
pedagogical tool (Chu et al., 2008; Chu & Kennedy, 2011).

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.

Items within the Motivation factor evaluate student's perception about

motivation to use wikis by investigating criteria such as effort, time, interest,
benefits, recommendations for use of wikis, and also preference toward use
of wikis for other courses.

3.

Items within the Group Interaction factor estimate students' group

interaction, consensus building, collaborative and cooperative learning.

4.

Items within Technology factor evaluate students' perception toward ease of

use, user interface, technical issues, comparison between wikis and the
course management tool.

According to Woo (2013), educational affordances determine how effective

students feel the wiki in delivering the learning outcomes, social affordances
determine how effective students feel the wiki in facilitating social interaction, and
technological affordances determine how effective students feel the wiki in technical

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.

2.3.2 Wikis for collaborative learning

The usefulness of wikis in education has increasingly been recognized. The most
highlighted advantage of wikis as an educational tool is its capacity to engage
students in collaborative learning (Carroll, Adkinns, Diaz, Meiklejohn, & Newcomb,
2013). Richardson (2006, p. 8) defines a wiki as a collaborative web space where
anyone can add content and anyone can edit content that has already published.
Collaboration is at the heart of the wiki medium, which easily leads to social
constructivist approaches for teaching and learning (Poore, 2013). Wiki allows
learners to reflect on their knowledge and makes it explicit in a collaborative way,
moving closer to a fully social constructivist approach of learning (Ruth & Houghton,
2009).
The technological characteristics of wikis can address spatial and temporal
problems during collaborative learning (Lundin, 2008). It provides a virtual platform
for student to continue discussion and work on projects together (Byron, 2005; Heo,
Lim, & Kim, 2010). In wiki-supported collaborative learning environments, students
are able to learn how to work online with others, integrate diverse perspectives or

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

commentaries/critiques on project integration work, and cross class/ course projects.

Schaffer et al. (2006) have found that wiki is a very effective tool for project planning
and documentation. It has been reported that university students perceived that wiki
was able to positively support collaboration efforts and effectively support learning
and engagement (Hughes, Joshi, Lemonde, & Wareham, 2009). Undergraduate
students have also reported the usefulness of a wiki in terms of knowledge creation,
capture, sharing and transfer in the context of a CSCL environment (Chu, 2008). A
comparison study of undergraduate and postgraduate students experience in using
wiki for their group project work have showed that student at both levels found wiki
is useful for knowledge management and construction (Chu et al., 2008).

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

text. Secondly, it helped students develop an inter-subjective orientation which is

useful for improving the quality of collaborative learning and reasoning. Thirdly,
through shared work in the wiki environment, students developed a sense of group
community. They created the end product collaboratively. Fourthly, as wiki enable
asynchronous collaborative processes, students engaged in co-reflection processes in
terms of collaborative critical thinking between individuals.
Another two recent studies have adopted affordance theory to examine how a
wiki can help in scaffolding primary-school students collaborative English writing in
Hong Kong (Woo et al., 2011) and Chinese writing in Mainland China (Li et al.,
2012). The analysis of their studies showed that students adopted a positive attitude
toward the use of wiki in collaborative writing and perceived wiki as helpful for
improving writing ability. Specially, in Woo study, students perceived several
educational affordances of wiki, including providing the opportunity to write in
English, to posting peer comments, to use an online dictionary, to critically evaluate
Internet information, to extract main ideas from the Internet information and to learn
from other groups. The wiki also provided social affordances that involve peercommenting through the wiki platform and social interactions within a team and
among teams. Additionally, technological affordances found in the study matched
affordances required for collaborative tasks (Bower, 2008). The technological
affordances included media, spatial, temporal, navigation, emphasis, synthesis, and
access control.
Lis (2012) study found the same technological affordances of the wiki. In her

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

participating in wiki-supported collaborative projects (Ertmer et al., 2011; Judd,

Kennedy, & Cropper, 2010). Identification of these affordances and constraints in
wiki perceived by students can have implications for improving its functionality and
effectiveness.
Recent research on the learner perceptions of how social media (such as wikis)
support learning are encouraging, yet few studies examine the affordance and
constraints of wikis for collaborative PjBL in primary education. As such, more
empirical research is needed to create a substantial evidence base. It is necessary to
examine the specific affordances and constraints in the specific learning activities. It
is also acknowledged that the participants in former research regarding primaryschool students using wiki for collaborative learning make up a relatively small size
and findings based on the statistical analysis of quantitative data warrant further
verification in bigger sample (Li et al., 2012; Woo et al., 2011). In the light of
previous research, this study sets out to address the abovementioned issues.

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.

3.1 Rational for a mixed-method research design

The selection of research method is determined by research questions. (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Yin, 2003). The general nature of my research questions is
exploratory, which needs qualitative approaches. The inquiry is aimed at investigating
how students perceive the technology for collaborative PjBL tasks. In the mean time,
what types of questions are another form of how many or how much questions
that can be resolved through quantitative approach.
Qualitative research questions tend to address the process of certain phenomena,
trying to learn the unknown and explore the unexplored. It usually generates
hypotheses during the course of the study while quantitative research begins with
specific or narrow questions (Creswell, 2008). Mixed methods research is
recommended if the study deals with both quantitative and qualitative data, and it is
able to build on the strengths of both types of data. Another strength of mixed
methods is to triangulate data to determine if the findings are both pointing to the
same or different results (Creswell, 2003, 2008).
Previous research have adopted mix-method design to study the effect of a
computer enhanced learning environment such as CSCL in school classroom situation.
37

Coyle (2007) used a combination of quantitative and qualitative data analysis

including online surveys, transcribed videotaped interviews, and group assignments to
examine how college students experience the use of online collaborative wiki
technology for group projects, and compared it with traditional face-to-face learning
settings. Although the statistical results from the small number of 15 participants may
not have strong significance, qualitative research design helps illuminate some of the
explanatory elements hidden under the surface of the statistics. Chu, Chan and Tiwari
(2012) used a mixed-methods design to obtain quantitative and qualitative data
through structured interviews and blogging entries. Results from both data source
revealed that undergraduate students perceived blogs to be useful during internship.
Qualitative analyses of blog contents further indicated that the students engaged in
cognitive, metacognitive-reflective, affective, and social-collaborative learning
processes in blogging. Woo (2013) combined the qualitative data to explore and
investigate Wiki's affordances together with the analysis of quantitative data to
examine what sort of relationship exists among peer comments and revisions.
In conclusion, mixed method design is an appropriate methodology to pursue in
this study. The study adapts the Triangulation Mixed Methods Design described by
Creswell (2008). In his description (pp. 557-558), Triangulation Mixed Methods
Design is:
1. Equal priority is given to both quantitative and qualitative data.
2. Both quantitative and qualitative data are collected concurrently or
simultaneously during the study.

38

3. Results from quantitative and qualitative analyses are compared to determine

if the database yields similar or dissimilar results.
In this study, the qualitative data is used to investigate wiki's affordances and
constraint together with the analysis of quantitative data to examine what important
features and less helpful ones in the wiki supported environment for effective project
learning by these groups of learners. In addition, results from quantitative and
qualitative analyses are used to determine whether primary-school students perceive
the wiki to be useful during their group project work.

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.

3.3 The wiki Google Sites

Google Sites (http://sites.google.com/) rather than other wiki technologies (e.g.,
PBwiki, Twiki, Wikispaces, MediaWiki), was chosen as the wiki platform in this
study. Google Sites is a free structured wiki- and web page-creation tool offered by
Google, which aims to make creating and sharing a group website easy (Google,
2011).
The main reason why Google Sites was chosen is that it does not require much
setup, maintenance nor technical knowledge, which is suitable for novice users
(Herrick & Collins, 2009). More specifically, Google Sites has two big advantages
over other wikis in terms of their features. One is that Google Sits does not need users
to learn HyperText Markup language (HTML) skill. This function is of greater
40

importance because primary-school students have been found difficult in mastering

HTML (Li et al., 2012). Lis study reported that it was hard for primary students to
upload pictures because MediaWiki requires some knowledge of HTML skill to do
this. Another is that Google Sites can support Chinese (Traditional) on setting and
event interface, which is the mother tongue of the participants. It is easier for
participants to learn how to use it. Besides, technical issue concerned in
compatibilities has been found between the Chinese writing format and the formatting
rules of wiki, which do not support Chinese language(Li et al., 2012).

3.4 Instructional design

In a naturalistic setting, the P5 students were tasked to conduct group research
projects during a 12-week period of the course (see Table 3.1). The actual project
work by students lasted 9 weeks within the wiki platform. Student groups were
assigned to a GS group project. Each group was free to choose a project topic under
four themes proposed by the Education Bureau (EDB) of Hong Kong (2011): (1) Life:
Change, Change, Change (2) Life in the city, (3) To know about my country, and (4)
Beyond our earth. The group projects required a wide range of knowledge and skills,
including research, information collection and analysis, report writing, presentation,
and more. In the context of this work, the stages of collaborative development of
projects are based on simplification of the classic three-phase of research projects
(Grgoire & Laferrire, 1999): (1) planning, (2) implementation , (3) processing of
the outcomes of the project.

41

Table 3.1: Timetable of the instructional design

Week

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

Students teamed up and

made a plan for their
group work.
Information search and
data analysis
Report construction
Presentation

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

heterogeneous in terms of participants gender, status, culture, or expertise, even at

low age, for collaborative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1996; Webb & Palincsar,
1996). As reported, students of age ten to eleven tended to be more aware of their
gender and became more sensitive to working with a different gender, so uneven
gender distribution of classes may cause conflict in mixed-gender grouping (Woo et
al., 2011). In this study, membership in a group was teacher-determined, selected by
students, or random. In few cases, students were free to team up for group projects,
and then teachers made some necessary adjustments to ensure a good mixture of boys
and girls as well as active and passive students.

3.4.2 A collaborative teaching model for scaffolding

Despite numerous advantages of collaborative PjBL and a long time presented, it is
still rarely used in the primary schools (Kubiatko & Vaculov, 2011). Front-line
teachers often demonstrate resistance to new teaching approaches and technologies
into their curriculum even they are shown to be effective (Crawford, 1999; Ertmer,
1999). Barriers for why teachers oppose the integration of collaborative projects via
new technology into their classroom encompass extrinsic and intrinsic causes.
Frequently reported extrinsic reasons such as tight teaching schedule, added workload,
insufficient technical and administrative support, while intrinsic reasons consist of
teachers beliefs and established instructional practices (Chu, 2009; Churchill, 2006;
Ellis & Hafner, 2008).
Collaborative teaching model emphasizes on teachers joint efforts in coplanning and implementing teaching ideas and the number of primary schools that
43

have been actively adopting collaborative teaching model is currently increasing

(Education Bureau, 2007). Such a teaching approach has been found to be beneficial
in more effectively helping teacher scaffold students (Chang & Lee, 2010; Chu, 2009;
Chu et al., 2012; Chu et al., 2012).
Previous studies have shown the importance of collaborative teaching practices
in improving instruction and student learning (Murata, 2002; Thousand, Villa, &
Nevin, 2006). Considering the increasing use of technology to facilitate PjBL
implementation, subject teachers and the computer teacher are suggested to work
collaboratively to facilitate PjBL in the classroom (Chang & Lee, 2010). Kafai and
Bates (1997) discussed the important role of school library staff in information
literacy instruction for both teachers and students. A development in collaborative
teaching is the acknowledgment of the librarians role in the modern school setting
(Kuhlthau et al., 2007).
The involvement of librarians in collaborative teaching has been advocated that
optimum collaboration can be made possible through a flexible three-member team
consisting of subject teachers, IT teachers and teacher librarians who work together to
guide students learning projects (Kuhlthau et al., 2007). Although collaborative PjBL
is a student-centred learning strategy, teachers role is still very important that means
guidance and scaffolding are needed. Such a teaching approach has been found to be
beneficial in more effectively scaffolding students during the process of project
completion (Chu, 2009).
Therefore, this study adopted the team-teaching strategy that involves

44

collaborations of subject teachers, IT teachers and teacher librarians to implement

wiki for collaborative PjBL in the classrooms. The role of three kinds of teachers in
this study was as followed:
1. GS teachers focused on the subject aspect and research process of the projects whether students are asking appropriate questions for the projects, classifying
information found sensibly, and selecting suitable materials to be included in their
project presentation. There is a consensus among researchers on the importance of the
instructors behavior in online collaborative learning in supporting group learning
processes (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009; Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2003;
Weinberger, Fischer, & Mandl, 2002). Online interaction does not necessarily
guarantee higher levels of discussion without proper grounding, monitoring, modeling,
coaching, or contributing on the part of the instructor, particularly at the onset of
instruction (Brandon & Hollingshead, 1999; Stahl, 2010). Thus, GS teachers were
suggested to review, monitor and comment students work on a regular basis (at least
twice a week). In this way, GS teachers can be supportive in the process of students
project work. To enhance mutual learning among students, the teachers input can be
viewed and shared by all students.
2. IT teachers were responsible for training students in IT skills focusing on the
use of Google Sites. They also provided students with a template to refer to regarding
various project elements that they could include in their work. A project sample was
provided on the first wiki page of the class site (see Figure 3.1) and and the groups
were then free to start their pages to conduct their group work.

45

3. Teacher librarians conducted activities to help students to be well equipped with

information literacy skills they need to search, locate, and use relevant information
sources for their projects. They ensured that student would have an access to a range
of resources in a variety of formats like books, web-resources and newspapers to meet
diverse needs and interests.

46

Figure 3.1: Project sample-The History of Hong Kong

47

3.5 Data collection

The present MPhil study was a part of a larger project titled Promoting a
collaborative teaching approach to inquiry project-based learning with Web 2.0 at
upper primary levels conducted by authors primary supervisor. The data for the
present thesis were collected as part of this larger project and made available to the
author. There were two major principles for data collection: The researcher sticks on
two principles of data collection: 1) use of multiple sources of evidence, and 2)
maintain a chain of evidence. Three major data collection strategies used for this
study were: (1) survey of all students about their perception of using the wiki; (2)
mining of the information on the wiki pages created by the students; (3) interview of
selected participants about their experience with using wiki.

3.5.1 Quantitative data source

This study collected quantitative data using one survey right after the completion of
group projects. Hazari and North questionnaire (2009), a self-reporting survey was
used to measure four educational philosophies of wiki technology: (1) Overall
Learning, (2) Motivation, (3) Group Interaction, and (4) Technical features. Cronbach
alpha, a measurement of internal consistency (or reliability) of instrument, was found
to be 0.97 for overall scale, which was over the standard 0.90 recommended for a new
scale (Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2005). For the subscales, Overall Leaning had alpha
of 0.92, Motivation had 0.93, Group Interaction had 0.87, and Technology had 0.85.
With respect to factor analysis, they reported Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin at 0.93 with
48

Bartletts test of sphericity measure of relationship between variables as significant

(p< .001). For item analysis, it was reported that all items were highly correlated with
their own scale in comparison to items in the other subscales therefore supporting
validity of the measure.
This survey is composed of 20 statements (see Appendix 3) using a 5-point
Likert scale with response options, that is, 0, I dont know; 1, Strongly disagree; 2,
Disagree; 3, Neutral; 4, Agree; 5, Strongly agree. This survey has content
validity and reliability to be capable of assessing student perceptions of value of wiki
technology (Hazari et al., 2009). A Chinese version of this survey (see Appendix 4) is
given to avoid misunderstanding as Chinese is the mother language for the students.

3.5.2 Qualitative data source

The collection of multiple sources of qualitative data enables a deeper understanding
of students perceptions on the learning phenomenon. In this way, the affordance and
constraints of wiki for collaborative PjBL can be identified. 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). All students were
asked to write self-reflection about their experience in the wiki pages, either be an
individual or a group.
(2) Students activities on the wiki platform (12 groups as above). The inputs
from individual students were accessed through the revision history function on each
wiki. This function allows direct access to all the previous versions of a wiki page and

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 Focus interview

(240 minutes tapes)

30 minutes fully transcribed sound

recording from 8 groups (30 x 8
minutes tapes).

Student reflections

Any activities during the study.

Students comments

Any activities during the study.

Content of edits

Any activities during the study.

To sum up, to make the description clear, the sample for the different data sources
is sorted in Table 3.3.

50

Table 3.3: Sample for the different data sources

Survey

KF

SH

CPS

WSK

Number of classes

Number of students (N)

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

Number of Groups (n)

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

Reflections & Activities

KF

SH

CPS

WSK

Number of classes

Number of Groups (n)

Number of students (N)

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

Number of Groups (n)

Number of students (N)

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

Notei school code+ grade number + class number; ii-male; iii-female;

iv-school code+ grade number + class number + group number

51

3.6 Data analysis

A matrix adapted from Maxwells (2005) Data-planning matrix shown in Table 3.4, chart out how each research question of this study is related
to instruments, data analysis, and helps to explain the logic behind the links.
Table 3.4: Data-planning matrix
What kind of data will answer the
Research Questions: What Why do I need to know
questions?
(Instruments
for How do I analyze the data?
do I need to know?
this?
collection of data)
Using Nvivo to see any emergence
i. What are the affordances of
Student self-reflection written on the
of patterns.
the wiki that primary-school To identify and categorize
wiki page, focus group interview, and
Coding categories based on
students perceived and used the affordances of the wiki
students activities on the wiki.
Kirschner et al. (2004) and Bower
for their group project?
(2008)
ii. What are the constraints
that influence primary-school
Student self-reflection written on the
Using Nvivo to see any emergence
To identify and categorize
students perception and use
wiki page, focus group interview, and
of patterns.
the affordances of the wiki
of the wiki for their group
students activities on the wiki.
project?
iii. What are primary-school To investigate students
students
attitude
and attitude and perception on the Questionnaire adopted by Hazari and
Using SPSS to do descriptive
North instrument (2009)
perception
towards
the value of wiki in terms of
analysis
learning, motivation, group
pedagogical use of wiki?
interaction, and technology.
Note: Adapted from Maxwells (2005) data-planning matrix

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

Chapter 4 Findings and Discussion

As stated in Chapter 1, this study examines the usefulness of wiki for primary-school
students collaborative PjBL. This chapter first reports the affordances of the wiki that
students perceived and used for their group project. In this session, the category of
affordances found in this study is reported as well as participants experience of using
these affordances. Next are reports of the constraints that influence primary-school
students perception and use of the wiki for their group project. In this session,
category of constraints found in this study is reported as well as participants
experience of encountering these constraints. The chapter concludes with reports on
the students attitude and perception towards the pedagogical use of wiki as indicated
by the survey and focus group interviews.

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

that related to requesting and providing feedback among peers.

Social affordances are the characteristics of the CSCL environment that facilitate
the social-contextual aspects of learning (Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002). In
this study, social interaction through the wiki was found to be afforded by the ability
to communicate through informal and casual conversations online, and the ability to
enhance motivation among group members.
The affordances provided by the wiki aligned well with the affordances required
by the learning tasks involved in collaborative writing tasks suggested by Bowers
(2008) classification. Media affordance refers to the ability to encode and perceive
media forms such as text, images, audio and video. Thus, media affordance includes
the ability of writing and reading text, drawing and viewing images, listening to and
recording audio move, or placing contents within an interface. Spatial affordance
refers to the ability to resize, move or place contents within an interface. Temporal
affordance refers to accessibility anytime and anywhere, and the ability to record and
play back information. Navigation affordance refers to the capacity to search and
browse within sections of the interface, as well as to sort and link sections. Synthesis
affordance allows the user to combine and integrate multiple components and create a
mixed-media platform. Lastly, access-control affordance refers to the capacity of the
online technology to allow or deny access and contributions within a platform.

57

Table 4.1: Wiki affordance categories generated by the qualitative analysis

First Level
Category
Educational
affordances

Second Level Category &

Sample Content &
Its Definition
Its Source Number
1. Group project management
X and I work together every Thursday. (A-SH(Students are able to designate and schedule the 5B-3-C)*
assignment.)
2. Group report co-construction
Google Sites is a collaborative environment,
(Students are able to participate in the document which allows us to do our work more
revision at will.)
conveniently. It is a platform for us to do our
work and amend it together. (I-SH-5B-K)
3. Information sharing
Source:
(Students are able to publish links to sources http://politics.people.com.cn/BIG5/8198/58705/i
of.)
ndex.html. (A-KF-5A-2-T)
4. Knowledge sharing (Students are able to post We can exchange opinions with each other in
their insights and interpretations on a concept or order to acquire more knowledge. (I-KF-5B-A)
topic.)

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.)

It would be better if you add more information

about the consequence. (A-SH-5B-4-Z)
Google Sites is better as there is a chat box so
we can chat with others while doing the project.
(I-SH-5A-B)

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

Number of coded references (%)

Reflection
Activities
Sub-total

Interview

Educational
1. Group project
management

1 (1.3%)*

8 (12.7%)

11 (2.7%)

20 (3.7%)

2. Group report coconstruction

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

Note: * percentage is calculated within each data source

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%).

4.1.2 Discussion of affordances

Based on the qualitative sources of information, this study determined that the three
types of affordances that were central to the design of CSCL environments were
present in the wiki to different extents (see Figure 4.1). A synthesis of the findings
from the different data sources showed that technological affordances were the most
apparent, followed by educational affordances, with social affordances representing a
relatively low proportion of the observed categories.

Education
affordance,
31.90%
Technology
affordance,
59.20%

Education affordance
Social affordance
Technology affordance

Social
affordance,
8.90%

Figure 4.1: Distribution of affordances found in the qualitative data sources

The usefulness of a CSCL environment consists of its usability and utility, is

determined by the various types of affordances (Kirschner et al., 2004). Usability,
62

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

affordances because it provided group members with a platform to engage in several

iterations of project plans and report construction. This appears to be related to the
technological affordance, but I propose that educational affordances are achieved
when the technological aspect is supported by pedagogical factors. It has been
suggested that educational affordances are related to the characteristics of a learning
program (Kirschner et al., 2004). In the learning activity in this study, the students
were given course instructions that prepared them to use the wiki for planning and
managing their group projects. They were also required to build their own group
report on the wiki, instead of using other traditional forms of word processing
technology. With such course-specific learning conditions, the affordances were not
limited to the technological dimension.
Social affordances were relatively less pervasive in the findings of this study.
This dimension was found to be generally centered on the provision of a
communication platform. Kreijns, Kirschner and Jochems (2002) have emphasized
that social affordance technologies must be able to support or anticipate users social
intentions. A social affordance technology will facilitate a group members initiation
of a communication episode with other members who have been perceived to be
present. These characteristics were found to be present in the wiki that was used in
this study, as evident in the exchange of comments on the wiki pages. During
observed activities, students were also found to respond to comments. When seeing
you could think more about why Miao males have such habits of dressing, students
immediately responded thanks for your questions, we are looking for answers.

64

Furthermore, one students (I-SH-5B-J) reported Google Sites is great as there is a

chatbox so we can chat with others at our own homes instead of having to meet out,
confirming that the students utilized the wiki platform as a means of engaging in
communication.

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

Table 4.3: Wiki constraint categories generated by the qualitative analysis

Sample Content &
Its Source Number

Category

Definition

Lower familiarity

Distinction from traditional

technology format, such as
MS office, email, and
telephone

Wiki formatting
system

Internet dependence

Compared to wiki, I can work

faster with word processing
software because I use it
frequently before. (I-CPS-5B-F)

The distinct formatting rules

Sometimes the format view under
that students find problematic
edit and view pages appear
in the co-construction of
differently. (I-WSK-5B-B)
materials.
I have to re-do my work due to
The inability to contribute
internet connection problem. (Iwork without internet access
SH-5A-K)

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%)

2. Wiki formatting system

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

Note: *percentage distribution is within each data source

4.2.2 Discussion of constraints

The constraints that emerged from the qualitative data sources appeared to be either
related to the characteristics of the wiki technology itself (i.e. technological-related
constraints), or due to the users perceptions and personal preferences (i.e. user-related
constraints) (see Figure 4.2).
Technologyrelated
constraints,
13.60%
Wiki formating
system, 52.5%

User-related constraints
Technology-related
constraints
User-related
constraints,
86.40%

Figure 4.2: Distribution of constraints found in the qualitative data sources

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).

4.3 Students attitudes and perceptions

4.3.1 Results of survey
The self-administered survey measured the extent to which students agreed or
disagreed with the 20 statements about wikis influence on the learning experience.
All 388 participating students were invited to fill in the self-administered survey. But
the sample sizes for the different items varied, because some students did not respond
to some of the statements. The mid-point of the rating scale is 3 (Neutral). Hence, any
rating that was larger than 3.00 would be considered as edging towards positive
perception. Table 4.5 showed the quantitative analysis of the students ratings. For the
reliability evidences of the scales and their dimensions, Cronbachs alpha was
calculated by using SPSS. Based on the standard for instrument reliability for
Cronbachs alpha (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991), each dimensions were
0.80 or better for exemplary reliability. In this case, I was able to analyze the all four
subscales.

69

Table 4.5: Students perceptions of wikis from survey data

Construct
Overall
learning

Motivation

Questions

Q5. Use of the Google Sites aided me in

385
achieving the course objectives.
Q7. I would like to see Google Sites being
384
used in other courses.
Q9. I participated in the assignment more
384
because of using Google Sites.
Q14. I will retain more material as a result
384
of using Google Sites.
Q19. The use of Google Sites enhanced my
385
interest in the course.
Q3. I would prefer projects that use a
Google Sites over other projects that do not
384
use a Wiki.
Q6. I stayed on the task more because of
382
using Google Sites
Q8. The benefits of using Google Sites are
worth the extra effort and time required to
383
learn it.
Q15. I would recommend classes that use
380
Google Sites to other students.
Q20. I will continue to explore use of
Google Sites for project work.

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

Q2. I like seeing other students interaction

385
3.40 (1.311)
with material I posted in Google Sites.
Q11. Use of Google Sites for the
assignment helped me interact more with
381
3.52 (1.266)
other students.
Q13. Because of using Google Sites, my
group was able to come to a consensus
385
3.46 (1.285)
faster.
Q17. Use of Google Sites promoted
383
3.57 (1.300)
collaborative learning
Q18. I learned more because of
information posted by other students in
381
3.50 (1.285)
Google Sites.
Q1. Google Sites interface and features
386
3.78 (1.228)
were overall easy to understand.
Q4. Browsing/editing information in
386
3.69 (1.302)
Google Sites was easy.
Q10. Benefits of using Google Sites
outweighed any technical challenges of its
383
3.36 (1.361)
use.
Q12. Technical features in Google Sites
385
3.59 (1.341)
helped enhance my learning.
Q16. Compared to other online discussion
384
3.47 (1.352)
boards, Google Sites was easier to use.
Note: ***0.80 or better exemplary reliability

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 1: Overall learning

The ratings of the five scales contributing to this factor indicated that students
generally perceived the wiki as an effective tool to foster learning. Students learning
interests were shown to be enhanced with the use of the wiki. One student (I-SH-5B-J)
reported that he had little interest [in the beginning] but after doing this project, [he]
feel[s] the topic to be more interesting and want[s] to learn more. The new learning
approach also reinforced students knowledge acquisition by providing them with
opportunities to learn from experiences which are meaningful and significant to them
(Dewey, 1916). Another student (R-WSK-5A-L) wrote, After this project, I learnt
72

that the harm of solar storm is closely related to us.

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).

Construct 3: Group Interaction

Communication among group members was enhanced and consensus was
reached more efficiently owing to the use of the wiki. Students generally showed
enthusiasm in group collaboration on the wiki. The students ratings and discussion
responses demonstrated generally positive attitudes of students towards peers
contribution to their project via wiki technology. One of the students (I-KF-5A-C)
reported Google Sites allows other people to comment on our work and we can learn
more from that. This further confirmed Mindel and Vermas (2006) statement that
use of wikis in educational settings follows belief in a social construction of
knowledge, where learners interact socially with each other and internalize the
knowledge in the process.

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.

5.1 Objective of this research

This study is aimed at evaluating the usefulness of a wiki as a collaborative PjBL
environment. It addressed current research gaps through the following research
questions:
RQ1: What are the affordances of the wiki that primary-school students
perceived and used for their group project?
RQ2: What are the constraints that influence primary-school students perception
and use of the wiki for their group project?
RQ3: What are primary-school students attitude and perception towards the
pedagogical use of wiki?
This study adopted a mixed-method design to build on the strength of both
qualitative and quantitative methods. Google Sites was used as the particular wiki

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.

5.2 Key findings

This study adopted a mixed-method research design which requires triangulation of
multiple methods to analyze data from multiple sources (Strijbos, Martens, Jochems,
& Broers, 2007). By analyzing the results of the three research questions, this study
generalized two themes regarding using wiki in primary-school students group
project work.
The first theme is the affordance associated with using wiki in group project. The
usefulness of one certain technology as CSCL environment does not concern itself
only with the usability, but also with the utility. According to Kirschner, et al (2004),
in CSCL environment the usability is determined by its technological functionalities
and the utility is determined by both its educational and social functionalities.
Findings showed that the wiki provided five kinds of educational affordances, six
kinds of technological affordances, and two kinds of social affordances (see Figure
5.1). Usability was supported by technological affordances that centered on the ability
to build and perceive mixed-media wiki pages. Utility was substantiated by
educational affordances that were related to group project management and group
report co-construction, as well as by social affordances that focused on the ability of
group members to communicate with one another. Therefore, the affordances that

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

Wiki formatting system

Internet dependence
Low familiarity

Figure 5.1: Affordance and constraint of wiki as a collaborative PjBL environment

5.3 Implications
This is about the use of Wiki technology by young Chinese students in Hong Kong
77

primary schools in doing collaborative project learning in their General Studies

subject. Though there is much existing research on the use of technology for
collaborative learning at various levels of education, the particular combination of age
group, cultural background and technology in the study is relatively new. The research
is motivated and framed by a systematic understanding of the literature on technology
affordance and constraint for collaborative learning for collaborative learning. The
analysis in the study is successful in highlighting important features and less helpful
ones in the wiki supported environment for effective project learning by these groups
of learners. In particular, the categorization of educational and social affordance is to
some extent an original contribution of this research to the understanding about the
Wiki for collaborative learning of young learners. Besides survey, the combination of
qualitative interviews and information on Wiki platform was an effective approach to
code affordance and constraint of Wiki, because it provided data that aided in
determining and characterizing how Wiki was used from Wiki participants
interactions.
In more practical levels, the research design may help educators integrate wiki
technology and match pedagogic strategies in their teaching practice. The findings of
this paper show positive teaching results of wiki use in primary education and
constraints of wiki can be reduced by appropriate pedagogy.
This study provides a practicable example for teachers who want to try wiki in
their classroom. Based on the findings, a few practical recommendations on using
Wiki in teaching are put forward.

78

First is wiki selection. There are a number of currently available wiki

applications, varying in features. A wiki variant equipped with no HTML knowledge
and multiple languages is preferable for young students. In addition, a wiki
programme freely available with large storage is desirable for educational purposes,
such that budget constraints will not be a hindrance. Another issue needed to consider
is network access regulation policies. Currently, wiki systems like Google Sites and
PBworks are blocked in Mainland China.
Second is scaffolding. To help students get the most from incorporating wiki
technology into their group projects, educators need to play a more active role as
facilitators. To reduce workload and provide better guidance, a collaborative teaching
model is suggested. Educators need to help students become familiar with the tool. In
this study, the frequency of teachers looking at students work is not meeting the
expected design requirements (twice a week). Students still encounter some
technological constraints. It suggests that tutorials and supervised wiki sessions
during the early stages of learning is of great value but still not sufficient, more
training sessions can be scheduled to provide more guidance and support to minimize
this kind of constraints. It would be desirable for teachers to provide students with
extra training sessions after students have been using the wiki to do project work for
2-4 weeks. During this training session, teachers could ask students to demonstrate
different tasks on the wiki for further use.
Third is parental concern. There is a possibility that students may be
misunderstood by their parents to be visiting undesirable websites or playing online

79

games during using wiki. Thus, teachers may need to introduce them to this new
mode of learning and encourage parental participation.

5.4 Limitations and further studies

Three limitations to this study are acknowledged. The first limitation is that this
study is based on a single implementation of wiki in specific region, so the findings
may have limited generalizability. The Great Firewall of China blocks Google Sites,
thus teachers and students in Mainland China have to find other wiki variants even
though this wiki is relatively suitable for young users. This suggests that future studies
can examine and compare the use of different wiki variants for primary-school
students group project work in different countries and regions.
The second limitation is the small sample size of qualitative sample. There were
79 groups, but only 12 groups work was chosen for analysis. Besides, the empirical
data in this thesis deserved further investigation. This present study verified the
affordance experienced by students that achieved the affordances of wiki in
facilitating collaborative PjBL, but it does not measure to what degree. Further study
could analyze the level of individuals participation, engagement and contribution to
the shared report. Besides, whether gender and the amount of feedback from students
influence students performance is also worthy to be studied.
The third limitation involved the instruction design of this study is not perfect. In
this case, it may need to consider design based research (DBR). Recently, more and
more researchers in CSCL advocate design based research (DBR) in doing CSCL
environment (Bower, 2011; Lipponen, Hakkarainen, & Paavola, 2004). However, my

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

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges

in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of The
Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
Bryant, T. (2006). Social software in academia. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(2), 61-64.
Byron, M. (2005). Teaching with TWiki. Teaching Philosophy, 28(2), 108-113.
Carroll, J., Adkinns, B., Diaz, A., Meiklejohn, J., & Newcomb, M. (2013).
Collaboration and competition on a Wiki : The praxis of online social learning
to improve academic writing and research in under-graduate students.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 513-525.
Carroll, J., Howard, S., Peck, J., & Murphy, J. (2002). A field study of perceptions
and use of mobile telephones by 16 to 22 year olds. Journal of Information
Technology Theory and Application, 4(2), 49-60.
Chang, L. C., & Lee, G. C. (2010). A team-teaching model for practicing projectbased learning in high school: collaboration between computer and subject
teachers. Computers & Education, 55, 961-969.
Cho, H., Stefanone, M., & Gay, G. (2002). Social information sharing in a CSCL
community. Proceedings of CSCL 2002.
Choudhury, M. D., Sundaram, H., John, A., & Seligmann, D. D. (2010). Analyzing
the Dynamics of Communication in Online Social Networks. In B. Furht (Ed.),
Handbook of Social Networks Technologies and Applications (Vol. 59-94).
USA: Springer.
Chu, S. K. W. (2008). TWiki for knowledge building and management. Online
Information Review, 32(6), 745-758.
Chu, S. K. W. (2009). Inquiry project-based learning with a partnership of three types
of teachers and the school librarian. American Society for Information Science
and Technology, 60(8), 1671-1686.
Chu, S. K. W., Chan, C. K. K., & Tiwari, A. F. Y. (2012). Using blogs to support
learning during internship. Computers & Education, 58(3), 989-1000.
Chu, S. K. W., Cheung, J. N., Ma, L. D. Y., & Leung, D. W. K. W. (2008). Student's
co-construction of group project work via Twiki. Knowledge Management:
Competencies and Professionalism, 7, 27-40.
Chu, S. K. W., Fong, C. S., Hui, O. S., Law, H. C., Yu, C. T., Lee, C. W. Y., & Fu, H.
84

J. (2012). Teaching guide on collaborative learning: Primary 4 inquiry project

based learning in General Studies. Hong Kong: In-service Teacher Education
Programme (INSTEP).
Chu, S. K. W., & Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Using online collaborative tools for groups
to co-construct knowledge. Online Information Review, 35(4), 581-597.
Chu, S. K. W., Tavares, N. J., Chu, D., Ho, S. Y., Chow, K., & Siu, F. L. C. (2012).
Developing upper primary students' 21 century skills: inquiry learning
through collaborative teaching and Web 2.0 technology. Hong Kong: Centre
for Information Technology in Education, Faculty of Education, The
University of Hong Kong.
Churchill, D. (2006). Teachers' private theories and their design of technology-based
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 559576.
Churchill, D. (2007). Web 2.0 and possibilities for educational applications.
Educational Technology & Society, 47(2), 24-29.
Churchill, D., & Churchill, N. (2008). Educational affordances of PDAs: a study of a
teacher's exploration of this technology. Computers & Education, 50(4), 14391450.
Cole, M. (2009). Using wiki technology to support student engagement: lessons from
the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141-146.
Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individual-social antinomy in
discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human development, 39, 250-256.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O. Shea
(Eds.), New directions in educational technology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Coyle, J. (2007). Wikis in the college classroom: a comparative study of online and
face to face group collaboration at a private liberal arts university. PhD
Dissertation, Kent State University, Kent, OH.
Coyle, J. E., Jr. (2007). Wikis in the college classroom: A comparative study of online
and face-to-face group collaboration at a private liberal arts university.
Ph.D., Kent State University, United States -- Ohio. Retrieved from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1335365311&Fmt=7&clientId=17557&
RQT=309&VName=PQD
Crawford, B. A. (1999). Is it realistic to expect a preservice teacher to create an
inquiry-based classroom? Science Teacher Education, 10(3), 175-194.
85

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed). Thousand Oarks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.): Pearson Education Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Singapore Pearson Education.
Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London:
Routledge.
Day, D., & Lloyd, M. M. (2007). Affordances of online technologies: more than the
properties of the technology. Australian Educational Computing, 22(2), 17-21.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Designbased research: An emerging
paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5-8.
Dsilets, A., & Paquet, S. (2005). Wiki as a tool for web-based collaborative story
telling in primary school: A case study. Proceedings of Ed-Media.
Dewey, J. (1916). How we think. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative leraning? In P.
Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational
Approaches (pp. 1-19). Oxford: Elsevier.
Dillenbourg, P., & Schneider, D. (1995). Collaborative learning and the Internet.
Retrieved Feb. 2, 2012, from
http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/research/CMC/colla/iccai95_1.html
Donnelly, R., & Fitzmaurice, M. (2005). Collaborative project-based learning and
problem-based learning in higher education: A consideration of tutor and
student roles in learner-focused strategies. . In G. O'Neill, S. Moore & B.
McMullin (Eds.), Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and
Teaching. Dublin: AISHE.
Ebersbach, A., Glaser, M., & Heigl, R. (2006). Wiki web collaboration. Berlin,
Germany: Springer.
Education Bureau. (2001). "Learning to Learn - The Way Forward in Curriculum"
Retrieved May 12, 2012, from
http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=2877

86

Education Bureau. (2007). Exploring Collaborative Lesson Planning (CLP) Retrieved

June 30, 2012, from
http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=3769&langno=1
Education Bureau. (2007). The Third Strategy on IT in Education: Right Technology
at the Right Time for the Right Task. Retrieved from
http://edbsdited.fwg.hk/3ITED/WebSite%20800x600/index_e.html.
Elgort, I., Smith, A. G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group
course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195210.
Ellis, T. J., & Hafner, W. (2008). Building a framework to support project-based
collaborative learning experiences in an asynchronous learning network.
Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 4, 167-190.
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies
for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 47(4), 47-61.
Ertmer, P. A., Newby, T. J., Liu, W., Tomory, A., Yu, J. H., & Lee, Y. M. (2011).
Students' confidence and perceived value for participating in cross-cultural
wiki-based collaborations. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 59(2), 213-228.
Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children's
problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2),
157-169.
Feng, S., & Beaumont, C. (2010). Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative
learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(4), 417431.
Fountain, R. (2005). Wiki pedagogy Retrieved May 10, 2012, from
http://www.profetic.org:16080/dossiers/dossier_imprimer.php3?id_rubrique=1
10
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting
methodological issues in transcript analysis: negotiated coding and reliability.
Internet and Higher Education, 9, 1-8.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.),
Perceiving, Acting and Knowing (pp. 67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
87

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

collaboration and productivity. Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM

SIGUCCS fall conference.
Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St.John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R. A., &
Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: lessons learned
from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16, 307-331.
Huertas, M. A., Casado, C., Crcoles, C., Mor, E., Elena, A., & Roldn, G. (2007).
Social Networks for Learning: Wikis, Blogs and Tagging in Education. Paper
presented at the European Distance and E-learning Network (EDEN) Annual
Conference, Naples, Italy.
Hughes, B., Joshi, I., Lemonde, H., & Wareham, J. (2009). Junior physician's use of
Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: A qualitative study.
International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78, 645-655.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In
D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and
technology (pp. 785-812). London: MacMillan.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Gabbert, B. (1986). Cooperative learning, groupto-individual transfer, process gain, and the acquisition of cognitive reasoning
strategies. The Journal of Psychology, 12(3), 265-278.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1991). Cooperation in the
classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research
paradigm whose time has gone. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Jonassen, D. H., Hernandez-Serrano, J., & Choi, I. (2000). Integrating constructivism
and learning technologies. In J. M. Spector & T. M. Anderson (Eds.),
Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology:
understanding complexity (pp. 103128). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Joosten, T. (2012). Social media for educators: strategies and best practices. Wiley:
Jossey-Bass.
Judd, T., Kennedy, G., & Cropper, S. (2010). Using wikis for collaborative Learning:
assessing collaboration through contribution. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 26(3), 341-354.
Jung, H., Jun, W., & Gruenwald, L. (2001). A design and implementation of web89

based project-based learning support systems. In W. Kim, T. W. Ling, Y. J.

Lee & S. S. Park (Eds.), The Human Society and the Internet. (pp. 354-367).
Seoul, Korea: Springer.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 21-46.
Kennewell, S. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of ICT in
teaching and learning. Journal of IT and Teacher Education, 10, 101-116.
Kennewell, S., Tanner, H., Jones, S., & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analysing the use of
interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Computer Assisted
Learning, 24(1), 61-73.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative
writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79-95.
Kirschner, P. (2001). Using integrated electronic environments for collaborative
teaching/learning. Learning and Instruction, 10(Suppl. 1), 1-9.
Kirschner, P. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological
affordances for learning. In P. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we
support CSCL? (pp. 7-47). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.
Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic
collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 52(3), 47-66.
Knowles, N., & Hennequin, W. (2004). New technology, newer teachers: computer
resources and collaboration in literature and composition. In J. A. Inman, C.
Reed & P. Sands (Eds.), Electronic collaboration in the humanities: Issues
and options (pp. 91-110). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: an Introduction.
In T. Koschmann (Ed.), CSCL:Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm
(pp. 1-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (2002). Teaching Science In Elementary
And Middle School Classrooms: A Project-Based Approach (Second Edition).
McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA.

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

Li, Q. (2012). Understanding enactivism: A study of affordances and constraints of

engaging practicing teachers as digital game designers. Education Tech
Research Dev, 60, 785-806.
Li, X. X., Chu, S., Ki, W. W., & Woo, M. (2012). Using a wiki-based collaborative
process writing pedagogy to facilitate collaborative writing among Chinese
primary school students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
28(1), 159-181.
Lipponen, L. (2001). Computer-supported collaborative learning: From promises to
reality. PhD Dissertation, University of Turku, Finland.
Lipponen, L. (2002). Exploring foundations for computer-supported collaborative
learning. Proceedings of the Computer-supported Collaborative Learning
Conference 2002.
Lipponen, L., Hakkarainen, K., & Paavola, S. (2004). Practices and orientations of
computer-supported collaborative learning In J. Strijbos, P. Kirschner & R.
Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL, and implementing it in higher
education (pp. 31-50). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lou, Y., & MacGregor, S. K. (2004). Enhancing project-based learning through
online between-group collaboration. Educational Research and Evaluation,
10(4-6), 419-440.
Loveless, A. (2002). ICT in the primary curriculum. In A. Loveless & B. Dore (Eds.),
ICT in the Primary School. Buckingham Philadelphia: Open Unversity Press.
Lund, A., & Rasmussen, I. (2008). The right tool for the wrong task? Match and
mismatch between first and second stimulus in double stimulation.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4),
387-412.
Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with Wikis: Toward a Networked Pedagogy
Computers and Composition, 25(4), 432-448.
MacGregor, J. (1990). Collaborative learning: Shared inquiry as a process of reform.
New Direction for Teaching and Learning(42), 19-30.
Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravit, J. (2003). Project based learning handbook: A
guide to standards focused project based learning for middle and high school
teachers. Novato, CA.: Buck Institute of Education.
Maxwell, A. J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.
92

Vol. 41). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Mayes, T., & de Freitas, S. (2004). Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and
models. Stage 2 of the e-learning models desk study. Bristol JISC.
McGrath, J. (1993). Groups and human behavior. In R. M. Baecker (Ed.), Readings in
Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work Assisting HumanHuman Collaboration Prentice Hall: Morgan Kauffman Publishers.
McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2007). Social software and participatory learning:
extending pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era.
In R. Atkinson & C. McBeath (Eds.), ICT: Providing choices for learners and
learning (pp. 664-675).
MediaWiki. (2012). Quick SVN merging guide Retrieved Sep. 25, 2012, from
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Quick_SVN_merging_guide
Milentijevic, I., Ciric, V., & Vojinovic, O. (2008). Version control in project-based
learning. Computers & Education, 50, 1331-1338.
Mindel, J., & Verma, S. (2006). Wikis for teaching and learning. Communications the
Association for Information Systems, 18, 1-23.
Murata, R. (2002). What does team teaching mean? A case study of interdisciplinary
teaming. Educational Research, 96, 67-77.
Murphy, E., & Coffin, G. (2003). Synchronous communication in a Web-based
Senior high school course: maximizing affordances and minimizing
constraints of the tool. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(4), 235246.
Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Professional, 9, 34-41.
National Science Education Standards. (2007). National science education standards:
An overview Retrieved Jun 2, 2012, from
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=1
Nicol, D. J., & MacLeod, I. A. (2004). Using a shared workspace and wireless laptops
to improve collaborative project learning in an engineering design class.
Computers & Education, 44(4), 459-475.
Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers.

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

Information Systems Education, 16(3), 311-320.

Ramanau, R., & Geng, F. W. (2009). Researching the use of Wiki's to facilitate group
work. World Conference on Educational Sciences - New Trends and Issues in
Educational Sciences, 1(1), 2620-2626.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
Resta, P., & Laferrire, T. (2007). Technology in support of collaborative learning.
Educational Psychology Review, 19, 65-83.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for
classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality
and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Ruth, A., & Houghton, L. (2009). The wiki way of learning. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 25(2), 135-152.
Safko, L., & Brake, D. K. (2010). The social media bible: tactics, tools & strategies
for business success. Hoboken: New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Salomon, G. (1992). Computer's first decade: Golem, Camelot, or the Promised Land?
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they
ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89-99.
Sandoval, W. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying
learning in context: introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199-201.
Santoro, F. M., Borges, M. R. S., & Santos, N. (2003). Learning through collaborative
projects: the architecture of an environment. International Journal of
Computer Applications in Technology 16(2), 127-141.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2008). Pedagogical Biases in Educational
Technologies. Educational Technology, 3-11.
Schaffert, S., Bischof, D., Buerger, T., Gruber, A., & Hilzensauer, W. (2006).
Learning with semantic wikis. Proceedings of SemWiki2006, 109-123.
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2006). Fostering knowledge construction in university
95

students through asynchronous discussion groups. Computers & Education,

46(4), 349-370.
Schrand, T. (2008). Tapping into active learning and multiple intelligences with
interactive multimedia: a low-threshold classroom approach. College Teaching,
56(2), 78-84.
Shah, C. (2012). Collaborative information seeking. The Information Retrieval Series,
34, 11-24.
Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. (2005). Learner perceptions of scaffolding in supporting
critical thinking. Journal of Computing in High Education, 17(1), 17-42.
Sherry, L. (2000). The nature and purpose of online conversations: a brief synthesis of
current research. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications
6(1), 19-52.
Sigala, M. (2007). Integrating Web 2.0 in e-learning environments: a socio-technical
approach. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3(6), 628-648.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research for the future-research on cooperative learning and
achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.
Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What is collaborative learning. In A. S.
Goodsell, M. R. Maher & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative Learning: A
Sourcebook for Higher Education (pp. 10-29). University Park, PA: National
Center on Postsecondary Teaching.
Sola, A. O., & Ojo, O. E. (2007). Effects of project, inquiry and lecture-demonstration
teaching methods on senior secondary students'achievement in separation of
mixtures practical test. Educational Research and Review, 2(6), 124-132.
Song, Y. J. (2011). What are the affordances and constraints of handheld devices for
learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6),
163166.
Stahl, G. (2010). Guiding group cognition in CSCL. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 255-258.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative
learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
96

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

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Worthy, J. (2000). Conducting research on topics of student interest. Reading Teacher,
54(3), 298-299.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design & method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Yu, A. Y., Tian, S. W., Vogela, D., & Kwoka, R. C. W. (2010). Can learning be
virtually boosted? An investigation of online social networking impacts.
Computers & Education, 55(4), 1494-1503.

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

Appendix 2: Focus Group Interview Questions (In Chinese)

1. word
Google Sites
2. Google Sites
3.
4.
5. Google Sites

6.

7. Google Sites

101

Appendix 3: Wiki Perceptual Survey (In English)

Google Sites Perceptual Survey
Name: _____________

Student No. ______________

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

Google Sites interface and features were overall easy to

understand.
I like seeing other students interaction with material I
posted in Google Sites.
I would prefer projects that use a Google Sites over other
projects that do not use a Wiki.
Browsing/editing information in Google Sites was easy.
Use of the Google Sites aided me in achieving the course
objectives.
I stayed on the task more because of using Google Sites.
I would like to see Google Sites being used in other
courses.

102

Strongly
disagree

Strongly
agree

The benefits of using Google Sites are worth the extra

effort and time required to learn it.
I participated in the assignment more because of using
Q9
Google Sites.
Benefits of using Google Sites outweighed any technical
Q10
challenges of its use.
Use of Google Sites for the assignment helped me
Q11
interact more with other students.
Technical features in Google Sites helped enhance my
Q12
learning.
Because of using Google Sites, my group was able to
Q13
come to a consensus faster.
I will retain more material as a result of using Google
Q14
Sites.
I would recommend classes that use Google Sites to other
Q15
students.
Compared to other online discussion boards, Google
Q16
Sites was easier to use.
Q17 Use of Google Sites promoted collaborative learning.
I learned more because of information posted by other
Q18
students in Google Sites.
The use of Google Sites enhanced my interest in the
Q19
course.
I will continue to explore use of Google Sites for project
Q20
work.
Other comments:
Q8

103

Appendix 4: Wiki Perceptual Survey (In Chinese)

Google Sites

:_____________

. ____________________

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

Appendix 5: Publications in support of this thesis

1. Fu, H. J., Chu, S., & Kang, W. X. (2013). Affordances and Constraints of a Wiki for Primaryschool Students Group Projects. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (4), 8596.

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