Assignment:

• consider how the group collaboration and discussion within the wiki space differed from what you are accustomed to in an LMS standard threaded discussion space
• What advantages do you see in using wikis for group collaboration?
• What are some of the challenges of working with others in a collaborative wiki space?

Reflection: While I see great advantages in using wikis for group collaboration, I think the design of this wiki activity did not necessarily support such collaboration. This module activity was better suited to a blog or discussion forum format. The long threaded ‘sightings’, while interesting to read, would perhaps have garnered some strong conversation within the discussion forums that did not occur in the wiki.

Why is this so? I made my initial wiki posting early and then waited a couple of days to enter the discussion page to give others a chance to post. When I made my way into the discussion page, I found that, rather than beginning with some general discussion and emerging into some big ideas, the format selected by ‘the group’ was now very task specific and linear. I added a few ideas in, but didn’t feel that there was a forum now for some of my comments or reflections on the insights provided by my peers.

What sort of task would better suit the wiki space? I think a truly collaborative, group authorship task such as we entered into during 510, where we selected any wiki entry and edited (in some cases, two or three students would simultaneously edit the same space) that entry to help improve or clarify it. The sense that authorship was less important than the end result and content appeals to me and suits the wiki space well. Reflections, questions and feedback on the discussion page helped editors to further develop the exisiting pages and create new ones in concert with colleagues.

Advantages: true collaboration, co-authoring and knowledge-building (co-construction)

Challenges: People have a difficult time letting go of the sense of authorship i.e. signing names to entries when not really needed; being unwilling or unsure about changing or editing content that is posted… (I fell victim to this in this activity since most discussion entries were ‘signed’ I didn’t feel comfortable revising them and, in turn, added my own brief and signed entry instead!).

It is obviously important, then, to lay out the ground rules in advance of this form of collaborative activity and to make people aware that their entries are ‘understood’ or visible as theirs simply by checking the history.

Suggested Ground rules:

• Be respectful of the work of contributors – both the content and structure
• Revise/Reorganize for clarification or correction purposes (especially to address inaccurate information) but don’t simply delete or replace the whole work
• Do not sign your work other than to add your name to the list of authors or editors in the title bar –  the wiki history pane will record your specific additions/changes
• Be sure your information is verifiable
• Cite and link to sources

(some of above ‘rules’ derived from: GM Wiki)