Critique 2: Joy Quah

Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

Critique 2: Qualitative Study

Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool in a Language Arts Methods Class

Kathryn I. Matthew
Emese Felvegi
Rebecca A. Callaway

Matthew, K. I., Felvegi, E., & Callaway, R. A. (2009). Wiki as a collaborative learning
tool in a
language arts methods class. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42(1), 51–72

Title/Abstract:
The title of this study is “Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool in a Language
Arts Methods Class.” Since the title does not clearly define the kind of ‘learning’
which results from using wiki as a collaborative tool, readers will need to proceed to
the abstract in determine if the article is relevant to their interests. It is only later in
the abstract that it becomes evident that ‘learning’ refers to a deeper processing of
the course content which was personally beneficial to the students.
The purpose of the study was clearly stated and easy to understand. It was
“to determine how contributing to a class wiki affected the learning of pre-service
teachers enrolled in a language arts methods class.” (p.51).
The style of writing in the abstract would immediately suggest to the reader
that this is most probably a qualitative report. In fact, the data collection methods
listed in the abstract included students’ reflections posted in WebCT, e-mail
correspondence, interview transcripts, and researcher notes. These, and the
absence of tests mentioned in the design, would immediately signal to the informed
reader that this is a qualitative study.

Introduction/Literature Review
The introduction to the study was remarkably effective. It highlighted the
affordances of the Wiki, while showing how these have been used for collaborative
work in other studies, thereby immediately setting the context for its use in the
research.
The literature review was comprehensive and explained how wikis situate
learning as they facilitate students’ knowledge construction while participating in a
1
 Critique 2: Joy Quah
Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

community of practice. The review of literature began by citing studies which have
used wikis effectively in collaborative work. These studies have focused on how
contributing to a wiki can harness the pooling of creativity, and collective resource
sharing which in turn results in knowledge which benefits everyone. This is, of
course, the main premise of the investigation, and literature locates the present
research within the range of studies which have focused on the benefits of using
wikis.
The literature addressed effective learning through wikis by citing studies
which have found that working collaborative on the wiki resulted in greater student
autonomy when students had freedom to develop their own choice of content. The
authors have also included studies which have demonstrated that the research,
discussions, and reflections which are a vital part of building content for the wiki
increased students’ understanding and retention.
The literature also foregrounded difficulties users faced when using wiki
technology. The inclusion of readings to draw attention to technical problems
related to the use of wikis was related to the third research question which
highlighted on the technical difficulties which could potentially jeopardize the
effectiveness of the wiki as a learning tool. In highlighting the difficulties through
the literature review, the authors have honestly acknowledged that using wikis is
not without its associated problems.
The researchers justified the purpose of the study by citing the need to
prepare preservice teachers to use Web 2.0 applications in their future classrooms.
They argued that preservice teachers not only need opportunities to learn to use
the applications, but also opportunities to use the applications as they learn.
Matthew et al also cited researchers who have called for teaching which engages
students in the processes of learning content while learning new technologies, such
as wikis. They added that there is a need for additional research that examines
ways preservice teachers can use technology for learning and critique the
technology as they use it.
In order to strengthen the justification for pursuing the study, Matthew et al
also cited researchers who have called for additional research focusing on the uses
of wikis in education, particularly when instructors assign and assess specific
collaborative tasks. The researchers who were cited asserted that Wikis have the
potential to provide structure and support for students as they collaborate, create,
2
 Critique 2: Joy Quah
Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

and learn from one another; hence, there is a need for ongoing research on the
inclusion of wikis in classrooms.

3
 Critique 2: Joy Quah
Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

The theoretical framework underpinning the study was clearly stated.

Situated cognition, Constructivism, and Communities of Practice were used to
explain how participating in the wiki enabled students to construct their own
knowledge as they participated in a community of practice. Seminal readings
associated with the theories were referred to. Additionally, the theories were
connected to previous research on the benefits of wikis in order to establish this
present study is one in a line of research which is theoretically sound in its
construction.
The goals of the study were clearly defined. The authors indicated that this
study was an ongoing effort to determine the potential of a class wiki to enhance
preservice teachers’ learning of course content. In alignment with this goal, the
researchers formulated the following research questions to guide the study:
1. How did contributing to a class wiki affect students’ learning of the course
content?
2. What were students’ perceptions of contributing to a class wiki?
3. What technology concerns arose when using a wiki?

Method – Participants
The 37 participants in the study were preservice teachers enrolled in three
language arts
methods classes taught by the first author. The selection was non-random since the
participants were included in the study based on existing groups of students who
had already signed up for the class.
The researchers did not mention if the study was reviewed by an ethics
board. There was, however, nothing to suggest that the participants were treated in
a manner which would post a significant level of risk to them that they would
normally face in a classroom situation. One concern is perhaps the element of
assessment involved in the production of the wiki. Participation in the wiki was a
class requirement, and students’ contributions to the wiki were part of the course
assessment. As part of the course requirements, students had to add course
content to a class Wiki. This suggested that the participants would face the risk of
jeopardizing their grades if they chose not to participate in the wiki project.
Participation, therefore, was not entirely voluntary. The researchers addressed this

4
 Critique 2: Joy Quah
Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

concern by giving the students the option of not having their reflections included in
the study, which I thought was sufficiently fair.
The researcher was not a participant observer. She mentioned that her
stance as a mere observer ensured that the students had autonomy regarding the
content of the wiki.

Method – Design
The researchers stated that they used case-study methodology to examine
the benefits and challenges of contributing to a wiki in a language arts methods
class. A case study method was used to allow them to conduct a “detailed
examination of one setting or a single subject, a single depository of documents, or
one particular event” (p. 54). They also chose the case study method because they
wanted their study to be is situated in authentic contexts that provide insight into
complex events and environments. The researchers also justified their use of case-
study method by pointing out that the investigation was situated in an authentic
learning environment involving complex events.
The study period was slightly longer than one semester. During this time,
preservice teachers formed groups with two or three members, and each group
selected a wiki page that they would monitor throughout the semester. Each
group’s responsibilities included deleting inappropriate or inaccurate content,
adding links to Web pages related to the topic, adding links to other wiki pages,
adding dictionary entries that pertained to their wiki page, and formatting the page.
Throughout the semester, the preservice teachers were required to add
course content to the wiki pages housed on PeanutButter Wiki at
http://llls4434.pbwiki.com. The wiki consisted of 40 pages, including an introductory
front page, a table of contents page, 11 pages covering course content, and a 26-
page dictionary.

Method – Measures
Data sources were in the form of online observations of the development of
the wiki, pages, students’ reflections periodically posted in WebCT, final reflections,
e-mail correspondence, interview transcripts, and researcher notes. At the end of
the first semester, the researchers randomly selected five students to participate in
5
 Critique 2: Joy Quah
Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

interviews about their experiences contributing to the wiki pages. The researchers
designed the interview questions to elicit additional comments from the students
regarding their participation in the wiki and to confirm information found in the
reflections. There were many data sources used in the study. As such, a greater
validity has been established because multiple data sources could be used for
triangulation to ensure the accuracy of the interpretation.

6
 Critique 2: Joy Quah
Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

Method – Data Analysis

The data analysis process was rigorous and described in sufficient detail to
enable a reader to audit the process. The researchers mentioned that they analyzed
the data using the constant comparative method (Glasser & Strauss, 1967). They
identified relationships through analysis of initial observations. Discussions were
continually refined through the data collection and analysis process, and then
continuously fed back into the process of category coding.
Some amount of grounded theory was involved. They reported that
categories began to emerge through constant comparison of episodes (Merriam,
1988). NVivo 8 software facilitated data analysis. The researchers transcribed and
entered the interviews into NVivo, along with all digitally recorded data sources. The
researchers independently read student reflections and interview transcripts, then
separately noted 23 emergent subcategories across the data from 338 data sources
containing 562 references.
In order to establish the validity of the data, the researchers calculated the
interrater reliability (Kappa coefficient) based on the percentage agreement of the
coding queries performed by the two coders, the first and second authors. They
indicated that interrater reliability was .88, which was sufficiently high. The authors
reported that they discussed and resolved all discrepancies which resulted from
differences in the lengths of the strings marked in NVivo.

Results and Conclusions

The method of reporting in this study was as close to a definitive piece as one
can find. It was simple and yet managed to capture the complexity of the student’s
experience of working in the wiki. The writers methodically arranged the
presentation of the results and the discussion so that each section corresponded
directly with answering the research questions in the correct sequence. In fact, they
began their results section by restating the research questions, which was helpful.
The results were discussed very thoroughly, and were related to the
conclusions. The authors kept quite strictly to discussing their findings and did not
range beyond results into speculation. There was some amount of interpretation
involved but it was always linked with a concrete example or response a participant
had reported or said in an interview. A reader would perceive that the writers’
observations and interpretations were accurate as they were consistently backed up
7
 Critique 2: Joy Quah
Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

with evidence from their data, which they quoted quite extensively, but
appropriately.
Not only were the authors assertions consistently supported with evidence
from the data, their discussion was also often linked back to the review of literature.
In their discussion and conclusion, they restated writers whom they featured in their
review of literature. This provided excellent cohesion for connecting the scholarly
and practical parts of the study throughout the report.

Theoretical Consistencies
Situated Cognition, Constructivism and Communities of Practice were the
theoretical underpinnings of the research. The authors succinctly linked the
theoretical frameworks to the research by summarizing that wikis have the
potential to enhance students’ learning because wikis situate learning in an
authentic context, ensuring that the learning is both memorable and transferable.
They proposed that wikis provide students with spaces in which to construct their
own knowledge within a community of learners who share common goals. The
relationship between theory and data seemed logical and was clearly reflected
throughout the report.
Recommendations for future study were not offered. However, some insights
about improving aspects of pedagogy and also some other students’ concerns
which were not discussed earlier were addressed in “Lessons Learned”. It was a
type of “miscellaneous” section dealing with elements that could not be categorized
on their own.
The results of this study could be meaningful to a larger population. The
findings of this study are timely because institutions of higher learning are pursing
online education and using various forms of Web 2.0 technologies to support
instruction. The study adds to the knowledge base of how educators may
productively use Web 2.0 technologies to promote more meaningful and purposeful
learning.

References
The authors included 47 references which were comprehensive, current and
comprised many key sources by leading researchers in their respective areas. The
older articles were included because they were part of seminal research related to
8
 Critique 2: Joy Quah
Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

the theories the writers used to support their investigation. Any researcher wishing
to study how wikis promote learning will find the references a very useful resource.
References were also appropriately formatted in APA.

9
 Critique 2: Joy Quah
Wiki as a Collaborative Learning Tool

Conclusion
The results of the study do not add significantly to what is already known
about the benefits of using wikis to support learning. In a sense, this was a
conservative and somewhat ‘safe’ investigation which did not set out to push the
boundaries of knowledge in the field. It merely supports and confirms other studies,
and therefore will not put this report in the league of seminal research. However, I
believe that this investigation is an excellent example of a rigorous qualitative study
in which the researchers took the necessary measures to ensure that there was
validity in the collection and interpretation of the results. The authors were very
thorough in ensuring that they anticipated and addressed questions that could
potentially arise by readers. In doing that, they answered most, if not all questions
related to procedures and reporting of the investigation. By deconstructing the
report, novice researchers could learn much about how a qualitative study is
designed and methodically presented.

10