History: aw2l

Source of version: 11 (current)

-==-
Communication for CIDUI International Conference - http://cidui.upc.edu (5-7 July 2006), Barcelona ([http://uniwiki.ourproject.org/tiki-download_wiki_attachment.php?attId=98&page=Uniwiki-Congressos|{img src=img/icons/ico_pdf.gif} pdf - 1.08 Mb] | [http://uniwiki.ourproject.org/tiki-slideshow.php?page=aw2c|Wiki-slides])
-==-

-=Title=-
"__Writing documents collaboratively in Higher education using Traditional vs. Wiki methodology (II): QUANTITATIVE results from a 2-year project study__"

-=Authors=-
Xavier de Pedro * (1, xavier.depedro@ub.edu), Maria Rieradevall (1, mrieradevall@ub.edu), Pilar López (1, marilopez@ub.edu), Dolors Sant (2, dsant@ub.edu), Josep Piñol (3, josep.pinol@uab.es), Lluïsa Núñez (4, 5, lluisanunez@ub.edu), Miquel Llobera (6, millobera@ub.edu)

''(~np~* corresponding author~/np~)''
(1) Dept. d'Ecologia, University of Barcelona (UB). Avda. Diagonal 645, 08028 Barcelona
(2) Dept. de Fisiologia Vegetal (UB). Avda. Diagonal 645, 08028 Barcelona
(3) Dept. de Biologia Animal, Biologia Vegetal i Ecologia, Autonomous University of Barcelona. Edifici C (Campus UAB). 08193 Bellaterra 
(4) Dept. de Biblioteconomia i Documentació (UB). C/ Melcior de Palau 140. 08014 Barcelona
(5) Aplicacions, Àrea de Tecnologies (UB). C/ Melcior de Palau 140. 08014 Barcelona
(6) Dept. de Bioquímica i Biologia Molecular (UB). Avda. Diagonal 645, 08028 Barcelona

-=Three keywords=-
Group collaboration, Wiki, Cooperative learning.

-=Summary of the experience=-
''(up to approximately 200 words)''

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 "homogenization of the style, markup, and content" of the work, as well as in "meetings in person". 


-=Full Text=-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l 1 Objectives)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l 2 Description of the work)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l 2.1 Introduction)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l 2.2 Methodology)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l 3 Results and Conclusions)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l 3.1 Results)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l 3.2 Conclusions)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l 3.3 Aknowledgements)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l 4 Bibliography)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l 5 Annexes)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l Annex 1)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
{INCLUDE(page=>aw2l Annex 2)}{INCLUDE}
-==-
SourceHistory