History: aw2l 3.1 Results

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 for the subject AIA 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).



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.

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.

We highlight the following items out of the 16 proposed, due to its interest for the global comparison:

• T3 (Structuring of the work),
• T4 (Writing of the work),
• T6 (Process of giving homogeneity to style and content),
• T8 (Final markup of the work in paper),
• T10 (Exchange of files and materials),
• T12 (Journeys),
• 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).