Jump to Content
Projecte UniWiki d'innovació docent
History: aw2l 3.1 Results
View page
Show Edit Sessions
Source of version: 5
Version
!! Results There where a total of 229 surveys and 223 auto-recording tables collected (divided in methodologies and subjects in Table 1 in the accompanying communication; De Pedro, 2006). Among the items answered in the collected surveys, some results are shown specifically for the subject "''Evaluation of Environmental Impact, course 2004-2005''" (AIA 0405) in detail, from which the more extensive and balanced data-set was gathered (circa 30 students with Traditional methodology ''versus'' circa 30 with Wiki methodology). !!! Methodological issues: Students with Wiki methodology did not use as much the more common ways of communication (phone, chat or instant messaging, e-mail) and of exchange of documents (floppies, USB-drives, ...), but they employed more the Wiki technology. Moreover, meetings in person were reduced in the groups of students that followed Wiki methodology. !!! Organisational issues In general, first-cycle students showed less difficulties to hold meetings during the week than those of second cycle. This is totally justifiable due to the bigger dispersion in subjects of last-years students, in spite of the case that subject was compulsory or optional in the degree. The difficulties of internal organisation inside groups were very heterogeneous, and they did not seem to be tied to the work methodology but more to the characteristics of each group of students. !!! Marks and time yield In very big work groups (AIA, 15 students for group) there is a clear advantage in the yield of the time invested for the students that worked using Wiki methodology respect to the ones using Traditional, with more frequent occurrence of high marks, for the same or less time invested (Figure 1). ::{img src="img/wiki_up/depedro_et_al_2006_figure1_time_yield_aia_0504.jpg" }:: ::Figure 1. Yield: marks versus time invested to complete the group work. Subject "AIA 0405". Common criteria for grading were used.:: In smaller groups (2-4 pupils for group, generally), where it is not essential to use special methodologies of work in group, there are not evident differences, and the success in the use of the tool might be more related with other factors (described in the full communication of this presentation) !!! Student satisfaction There are some differences in the perception of the satisfaction about the method between the pupils of first cycle and those of second cycle. On the one hand, students of first cycle compulsory subjects, if they can meet every day in class and that are more usual to the multimedia technologies (Functional Ecology), then they need more tutelage and direction of the work, and they do not seem to appreciate the advantages of the methodology so much. The students of optional subjects of the first cycle that can not meet every day in class (because most of them work besides studying, as it happens in SIMA "Health and Environment" from Nursery degree), they do appraise it indeed more positively than with the traditional method. Students of second cycle feel satisfied and recognise the advantages of the Wiki methodology, especially regarding the subject AIA and EAUB. In some specific cases, however, they did not use the tool due to technological handicaps and because they were not used to this methodology of work. __"AIA 0405" specific case study__ Students that used Wiki methodology showed a higher satisfaction degree for the tool than the students that didn't use it (Figura 2. QS 39 – AIA 0405), and they showed a little less satisfaction regarding the Internet connection (Figura 3. QS44 – AIA 0405). ^::{img src=http://uniwiki.ourproject.org/img/wiki_up/histogrames_aia_0504_a_html_5163d555.gif }::^ ::Figure 2 And Figure 3 from left to right, respectively. Example for AIA05:: Students that worked with Wiki thought the the methodology they used served them to increase their final quality in the work and document, and the ones who used traditional methodology didn't think that their work methodology helped them as much as their colleagues with Wiki methodology thought (Figure 4. Q49 – AIA – 0405). Likewise, all students thought that Wiki methodology facilitated that they couild interact with the parts of the document led by other members of the work group, and that the other ones could interact with theirs. This can be deduced from that students with Wiki methodology had the feeling that it allowed them to improve their interaction (Figure 5. Q50 – AIA 0405), and the others declared that traditional methodology, with which they worked, didn't facilitate this expected (and pursued by lecturers as a goal from the subject objectives) interaction among students. ^::{img src=http://uniwiki.ourproject.org/img/wiki_up/histogrames_aia_0504_a_html_m6bf38305.gif }::^ ::Figure 4 and figure 5, from leeft to right, respectively. Example for AIA05:: !!! Time invested by items It could be analysed only in four subjects (AIA-0304, AIA-0405, EAUB and SIMA). Some of the items were specific of each subject and their comparison has no real meaning in practise for all subjects, since the survey, common to all, contained questions about items that were not used at all in some subjects, but were in others. Thus, we highlight (in bold) some items out of the 16 proposed (Annex 2), due to its interest for the global comparison: * T1 = Chosing the topic * T2 = Searching information * __T3 = Structuring the document information,__ * __T4 = Writing of the work,__ * T5 = Including images in the document * __T6 = Process of giving homogeneity to style and content,__ * T7 = Final markup to the document, in web page * __T8 = Final markup of the document, in paper,__ * T9 = Preparing oral presentation * __T10 = Exchange of files and materials,__ * T11 = visits-interviews with topic experts * __T12 = Journeys,__ * T13 = Tutorship in person with teacher/s * T14 = Tutorship by telematic means with teacher/s * __T15 = Meetings in person of the members of the group__, and * __T16 = Telematic communication among the members of the group: phone, wiki, e-mail, chat, etc.__ The time devoted to structuring the work (item T3) is not necessarily inferior using Wiki methodology respect to traditional methodology, even though there was an exception (AIA 0405). The time devoted to writing the work (item T4) has been inferior with Wiki methodology. This is a positive result of support to the Wiki tool and methodology. Another aspect that we wanted to explore was if the Wiki methodology favoured the process of giving homogeneity to the markup, style and content of the work (item T6). Students from AIA and SIMA subjects that worked with Wiki methodology dedicated less time to giving homogeneity than those with traditional methodology, except for the EAUB subject, having in all cases similar presentation quality. It remains unclear if these differences in results are only a consequence of the type of methodology or a consequence of the different interest and commitment of each working group in the matter of work. In all experiences, Wiki methodology saved, in average for the whole group, about 50% of the time invested on final markup of the work (item T8), compared to students working with traditional methodology. But the teaching staff felt that the single students that made this markup did not have to invest less time through Wiki methodology than the ones with traditional methodology. Suitable data was not collected to verify this hypothesis. In general, Wiki methodology enables a time saving in the exchange of files and materials (item T10) of about 50%. Regarding the time dedicated to journeys (T12), even though it seemed that the Wiki methodology saved time in general, results were not conclusive since the time for journeys was tied to the specific characteristics of each work (there were works where longer journeys were required for interviewing experts, and on this matter, Wiki methodology was not able to bring savings). The time devoted to meetings in person (T15) was in global reduced with Wiki methodology in a clear way, even though in a single case the results were inverted (to see EAUB). __"AIA 0405" specific case study__ On the one hand, students that used Wiki methodology invested less time in (Figure 6): * choosing the topic (item 1 or T1), * structuring the document information (T3), * homogenization of the single discourse of the document (T6), * exchange of files and other material (T10), and * meeting in person of the work group members (T15). On the other hand, Wiki methodology meant a major inversion in time, respect to traditional methodology, in: * including images in the document (T5, although there were very little students that included images in the document, in both work methodologies). + This result was expected since we there was a missconfiguration of Tikiwiki in our specific hosting provider, which was solved long ago, but after the experiences were carrried with students in the framework of the project reported here (course 2004-2005). By then, students had to upload images not directly to the single page were they were going to use them (as explained in De Pedro 2006, which is probably less time consuming than including them in MS Word documents), but they had to upload them to "Image Galleries" feature, search them there, copy their link, and go back to the text document to include them there by manually adding some wiki code to reference that image in that position. This longer and more manual process obviously meant longer times to include images, and also some disagreement from students (and teachers), of course, which had to learn the process to include them in the wiki page already. Many students didn't include images in the wiki pages, but waited to have the final OOo Writer or MS Word document to include them there, at that final stage of the group work, just before printing it in paper. Tutorship (T13, T14) is not commented here but in a next section (below). ^::{img src=http://uniwiki.ourproject.org/img/wiki_up/histogrames_aia_0504_a_html_78a65c0a.gif width=650 }::^ ::Figure 6. Time invested by items, for "AIA 0405" specific case study:: !!! Tutorship Students who had worked with Wiki methodology invested more hours of tutorship in person in all cases with data ("AIA0405" and "SIMA"; both with the same teacher) than their colleagues with traditional methodology. They had to do some extra meetings inside class hours for showing them the basic functioning of the Wiki technology and solving doubts, since only between 5 % and 10 % of the those students had done the specific extra course (convalidable as "free choice" credits) on Wiki technology offered. Looking at data from these specific students who attended the extra course, the time they invested in tutorship in person was much lower than the average (data not shown). Time dedicated to tutorship through telematic means (e-mail. forums, internal Tiki messaging, etc.) was much lower in students with Wiki methodology than in those who used Traditional methodology, for the most relevant case ("AIA 0405"), where students knew already e-mail, web browsing, searching information in computers, etc. Students from "SIMA" (just arrived to university, and most of them with much lower previous knowledge in computer science than students from "AIA 0405", which is a more difficult degree to roll in at the beggining, and students at third year at university), behaved differently, and in which the pupils that did not use the methodology Wiki do not make to consume a lot of time in tutorship on the achievement of his work. __"AIA 0405" specific case study__ Those who have worked with Wiki showed to have invested more hours in tutorship or support of the professorship at level presencial that the pupils who worked with traditional methodology (Figure of the item 13 - AIA 0405), but not at telematic level, in which they invested less (Figure of the item 14 - AIA 0405). The different tutorització presencial might assume to the biggest need to consult with the teacher that those that the Wiki is writing itself in or speaking for the electronic forums of the subject. Whereas the pupils with traditional methodology would speak already more in person between the different members of the group of work, and therefore, he would be necessary to go to consult less basic things to the professorship. On the other hand, the pupils who worked with methodology Wiki would have needed minor time of tutorització for route telematic, since the Wiki already would allow to ask about them to comment or even to discuss concrete things of the work without having to be presencialment. ^::{img src=img/wiki_up/histogrames_aia_0504_a_html_m73e0254a.gif width=700 }::^ ::Figure X. Example for AIA05:: Did not the pupils who worked with wiki stay all been satisfied with the contributed support the professorship to realize the practices, whereas those who used the traditional method of work in team if that remained very satisfied (Figure Q23? AIA 0405). Of here it is deduced that, being the task of the professorship the same one with regard to the content of the subject and rules for the holding a permit but autonomous work of the students, the difference must be to cause specifically of the method of work based on Wiki. I joust that is to say that only 4 of 31 pupils who used the Wiki signed up previously the extraordinary curset of 10 hours (convalidable as credits of free election) on writing cabbage · laborativa with Wiki, receiving the rest, little more than two hours of formation in Wiki distributed along the first two meetings attend them with the pupils. This way, it would be of hoping that the pupils who worked with methodology Wiki should remain with the sensation that them it was necessary to have more support metodològic (for that the support on the content was the same for some and others) on the part of the professorship. ^::{img src=img/wiki_up/histogrames_aia_0504_a_html_776a1978.gif }::^ ::Figure X. Example for AIA05:: Consequently it seems importing that the pupils who have to be employed with methodology Wiki at his subject, could have made earlier a specific curset to get accustomed in a slow, gradual way and comfortable to the especificitats of the methodology of work Wiki to end and effect of extracting the maximum profit with the minimum of desorientació due to the methodology of work cabbage · laboratiu based on Wiki the day that they had to use at level of production in real situations of teams of work cabbage · laboratius.
Comparing version with version
Version
Versions are identical
History
Legend:
v=view , s=source , c=compare, d=diff
Information
Version
Action
Tue 06 de June, 2006 18:29 CEST by
Xavier.dePedro
from 83.180.166.105
10
Current
v
s
Tue 06 de June, 2006 18:29 CEST by
Xavier.dePedro
from 83.180.166.105
10
v
s
c
d
Tue 06 de June, 2006 16:02 CEST by
Xavier.dePedro
from 83.180.166.105
9
v
s
c
d
Tue 06 de June, 2006 13:59 CEST by
Xavier.dePedro
from 83.180.166.105
8
v
s
c
d
Tue 06 de June, 2006 12:54 CEST by
Xavier.dePedro
from 83.180.166.105
7
v
s
c
d
Tue 06 de June, 2006 12:25 CEST by
Xavier.dePedro
from 83.180.166.105
6
v
s
c
d
Tue 06 de June, 2006 11:22 CEST by
Xavier.dePedro
from 83.180.166.105
5
v
s
c
d
Tue 06 de June, 2006 10:37 CEST by
Xavier.dePedro
from 83.180.166.105
4
v
s
c
d
Sat 03 de June, 2006 21:38 CEST by
Xavier.dePedro
from 83.180.153.74
3
v
s
c
d
Fri 02 de June, 2006 12:31 CEST by
Xavier.dePedro
from 83.177.57.188
2
v
s
c
d
Fri 02 de June, 2006 11:46 CEST by
system
from 0.0.0.0
creat des d'estructura
1
v
s
c
d
Enable pagination
Source
History
Col·laboren
Traduccions automàtiques
Version
Version