510

What are the relevant design affordances that shape how learning happens in a wiki?

Everyone can build on each other’s contribution in wikis. Papert (1984) eluded to this when he described a fragmented learning process in Logo which allowed students to share bits of knowledge which led them to reaching goals collaboratively. Well edited wiki entries are reviewed and discussed by a number of people which increases its accuracy. However, there is still debate over whether or not the input by the collective is correct or not. Another affordance is the open access to current knowledge because people are regularly updating the pages.

How could we provide a kind of critical media literacy that would assist students’ to evaluate the quality of knowledge – both their own, and the knowledge retrieved from online sources, or textbooks?

In a radio interview, Jimmy Wales (2005) said that students shouldn’t be citing Wikipedia or any other in academic papers. He goes on to say that we need courses that teach students how to recognize valid sources and think critically about where the information is coming from. Cummings (2009), who asked his university students to write for Wikipedia, defined this as a teachable moment. Personally, the Research Methodology course in the MET Program has helped me evaluate whether a source is reputable or not. This includes peer reviewed articles that should be credible but have faulty methodology or logic.

Cummings (2009) and Beasley-Murray (2008) encouraged their students to evaluate the quality of their own knowledge by writing for Wikipedia. The publication of their writings motivated their students to produce accurate work. Students made revisions based on feedback from other Wikipedia editors. Their work was more meaningful to them than simply handing in a paper or writing an exam and receiving a mark.

How would you assess the quality of students’ own contributions in a wiki?

Firstly, I would give explicit instructions on my expectations for the wiki. For example, instead of groups of students splitting a wiki page into parts, I would instruct students to build the page collaboratively. I would evaluate students’ contributions to a wiki with a self assessment where students would write about the improvements they made to the wiki and why. I would also use the history function to compare the newest revision to the old version for significant improvements.

How can arguments about the quality of knowledge impact educational decisions about appropriate media usage?

Arguments about the quality of knowledge encourage people to reflect on what is appropriate to use as credible sources. Perhaps, discussions like these will help us redefine what is credible and what is not.

I think it’s important for people to read multiple sources before making an informed decision about a topic. I think Wikipedia can be used for everyday questions or serve as a “general introduction to a topic” (Cummings, 2009). However, currently, I would only use primary sources from peer reviewed literature in an academic paper.

Papert, S. (1984). New theories for new learning. School Psychology Review, 13(4), 422-428. Retrieved from: https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/PDF/S%20Papert_New%20Theories%20for%20New%20Learnings.pdf

Cummings, R. (2009, March 12). Are We Ready to Use Wikipedia to Teach Writing? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/03/12/cummings

Giles, J. (2005). Special Report: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438, 900-901. doi: 10.1038/438900a

Beasley-Murray, J. (2008). Was introducing Wikipedia to the classroom an act of madness leading only to mayhem if not murder? Retrieved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jbmurray/Madness

Wales, J. (2005). Wikipedia, Open Source and the Future of the Web. NPR. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4986453&ft=1&f=1019