History: aw2l

- Communication for CIDUI International Conference - http://cidui.upc.edu (5-7 July 2006), Barcelona

- {DIV(float=>right)}{toc}{DIV}{maketoc}

- If the first part of the results from the recent projects in innovation teaching using Wiki methodology for doing group assignments in university degrees showed the qualitative results (De Pedro et al. 2006), this second part focuses more on the quantitative results. Data came from three sources: (a) individual surveys to students using either Traditional or Wiki methodology, including closed questions (1 to 5), (b) a table where they auto-recorded the time invested per week and per type of tasks to complete the group assignment, and (c) their academic marks in the group assignments, evaluated with common criteria for both methodologies. Conclusions from the results obtained stated four main ideas: (1) Wiki methodology in big groups - 15 students - showed a clear enhancement in quality (higher marks) with less overall time devoted to finish the work; (2) Results for smaller groups were not clear, and performance using Wiki methodology seemed to depend on other factors; (3) an "editor in chief" is very important and needed for higher final quality of the work produced, regardless of methodology followed, even if this task was apparently facilitated by Wiki methodology; and (4) students using Wiki methodology devoted less time than the ones using traditional methodology in the items: "writing the work", "exchanging files and other material", and in some cases, in "structuring" and "homogenisation of the style, markup, and content" of the work, as well as in "meetings in person".

- !- Notes from the journal
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Journal of Educational Technology & Society
- http://www.ifets.info/
-
- Peer review manuscript preparation guidelines
-
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- (These guidelines apply to all full length papers, short papers, critiques and case studies)
- Word length of submission
-
- * Full paper: 4000 to 7000 words
- * Short paper: up to 3000 words
- * Critique: up to 3000 words
- * Case study: up to 3000 words
-
- General guidelines
-
- Each article should have at least following items:
-
- * title (up to 10 words)
- * complete communication details of all authors
- * an informative abstract (75 to 200 words) presenting the main points of the paper and the author's conclusions
- * four - five descriptive keywords
- * main body of paper
- * conclusion
- * references
-
- Submissions should be single spaced.
-
- Footnotes and endnotes are not accepted, all such information should be included in main text.
-
- The paragraphs should not be indented. There should be one line space between consecutive paragraphs.
-
- There should be single space between full stop of previous sentence and first word of next sentence in a paragraph.
-
- The keywords (just after the abstract) should be separated by comma, and each keyword phrase should have initial caps (for example, Internet based system, Distance learning).
-
- Do not use 'underline' to highlight text. Use 'italic' instead.
- Headings
-
- Articles should be subdivided into unnumbered sections, using short, meaningful sub-headings. Please use only two level headings as far as possible. Use 'Heading 1' and 'Heading 2' styles of your word processor's template to indicate them. If that is not possible, use 12 point bold for first level headings and 10 point bold for second level heading. If you must use third level headings, use 10 point italic for this purpose.
-
- There should be one blank line after each heading and two blank lines before each heading (except when two headings are consecutive, there should be one blank like between them).
- Tables
-
- Tables should be included in the text at appropriate places and centered horizontally. Captions (maximum 6 to 8 words each) must be provided for every table (above the table) and must be referenced in the text.
- Figures
-
- Figures should be included in the text at appropriate places and centered horizontally. Captions (maximum 6 to 8 words each) must be provided for every figure (below the figure) and must be referenced in the text. The figures must NOT be larger than 500 pixels in width.
-
- Please provide all figures separately in GIF or JPEG (JPG) formats besides embedding them in the text.
- References
-
- All references should be listed in alphabetical order at the end of the article under the heading 'References'.
-
- All references must be cited in the article using "authors (year)" style e.g. Merrill & Twitchell (1994) or "(authors1, year1; authors2, year2)" style e.g. (Merrill, 1999; Kommers et al., 1997).
-
- Do not use numbering style to cite the reference in the text e.g. "this was done in this way and was found successful [23]."
-
- It is important to provide complete information in references. Please follow the patterns below:
-
- Journal article
-
- Laszlo, A. & Castro, K. (1995). Technology and values: Interactive learning environments for future generations. Educational Technology, 35 (2), 7-13.
-
- Newspaper article
-
- Blunkett, D. (1998). Cash for Competence. Times Educational Supplement, July 24, 1998, 15.
-
- or
-
- Clark, E. (1999). There'll never be enough bandwidth. Personal Computer World, July 26, 1999, http://www.vnunet.co.uk/News/88174.
-
- Book (authored or edited)
-
- Brown, S. & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of Teaching, Buckingham: Open University.
-
- Chapter in book/proceedings
-
- Malone, T. W. (1984). Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. In Walker, D. F. & Hess, R. D. (Eds.) Instructional software: principles and perspectives for design and use, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 68-95.
-
- Internet reference
-
- Fulton, J. C. (1996). Writing assignment as windows, not walls: enlivening unboundedness through boundaries, retrieved July 7, 2002 from http://leahi.kcc.hawaii.edu/org/tcc-conf96/fulton.html