Chu 2008 Student's Co-Construction of Group Project Work Via Twiki

Chu S., Cheung J., Ma, Ma L. and Leung D (2008).
Student’s Co-Construction of Group Project Work

Via Twiki. Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Knowledge Management, Columbus,
Ohio, October 23-24, 2008 (pp. 27-41). Singapore: World Scientific.
Title: Students’ co-construction of group project work via TWiki
Authors:
Samuel Kai-Wah Chu
Division of Information and Technology Studies, Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong
samchu@hkucc.hku.hk
John Ngai Cheung

Hong Kong International School
jncheung@hkusua.hku.hk
Lisa Duan Yang Ma

Faculty of Social Sciences, the University of Hong Kong
hitsuji@hkusua.hku.hk
David Wilck Ka Wai Leung

Faculty of Arts, the University of Hong Kong
oberst@hkusua.hku.hk
Abstract
Purpose: This paper reports on a comparison of undergraduate and postgraduate students’ experience
in using TWiki, a knowledge management enabling tool to co-construct group project work. It
examines the following areas: (1) whether TWiki helps improve students’ level of collaboration and
the quality of their group project work; (2) whether TWiki facilitates knowledge creation and sharing;
and (3) whether using TWiki is better or worse than, or as good as the traditional ways of doing group
projects, such as using Microsoft Word.
Methodology: In this study, we surveyed 62 students in total. Twenty-one were postgraduate students
and 41 were undergraduates. They came from two different courses, i.e. Knowledge Management and
Information Behaviour. We collected the data from the students either by telephoning or asking them
to fill in a questionnaire and return it by email. Non-parametric statistical test were conducted with
SPSS to analyse the numerical data. The qualitative comments from students were examined by
NVivo.
Findings: Preliminary analysis shows both groups of students had positive experience on using TWiki
to do their group project in terms of whether TWiki helps improve group members’ collaboration
(Undergraduate: 3.3/ 5; Postgraduate: 3.2/5) and whether TWiki helps improve the quality of the
project (Undergraduate: 3.2/ 5; Postgraduate: 3.2/5). Students answered the questions with a scale
from 1 to 5 with 1 stands for “Not at all” and 5 for “Very much so”. Using the same scale, both groups
of students rated TWiki positively as an enabling tool for knowledge creation (Undergraduate: 3.75/ 5;
Postgraduate: 3.45/5) and knowledge sharing (Undergraduate: 4.18/ 5; Postgraduate: 3.93/5). On the
other hand, students’ qualitative comments showed that they found TWiki better than Microsoft Word,
such as in terms of knowledge sharing and knowledge co-creation, for doing group projects.
Keywords TWiki, Knowledge Creation, Knowledge Sharing, Wiki, Collaborative work

Paper type Conference paper
1. Introduction
Wiki is a Hawaiian word meaning quick (Lamb, 2004), and wiki software is so named because it
combines reading and writing within a web browser, allowing for easy editing of text, as well as easy
N:\Sam-publications\published articles\conf\Chu 2008 Student's Co-Construction of Group Project Work Via Twiki.doc 01/07/2008 1
creation and linkage of web pages. For this reason, wikis are commonly used as knowledge
management tools to facilitate the creation, sharing, discussion and revision of knowledge artifacts in
group projects (Da Lio et al. 2005). Wiki software has also been applied in various ways in education,
including support for writing individual and group projects, course management and distance
education (Bold, 2006; Parker & Chao, 2007). Some teachers have even used wikis as tools to co-
create teaching materials (Da Lio et al., 2005). Of the various wiki software, TWiki is considered as
the flagship by some researchers (Ebersbach et al. 2006), and it serves well as a project development
space, a document management system and a knowledge base for intranets or the Internet (TWiki,
2007).
This paper explores the effectiveness of applying TWiki to facilitate student group work at
undergraduate and postgraduate levels. It also compares the similarities and differences between the
two groups of students in their experiences on using TWiki for their group projects.
2. Literature Review
Constructivism has been regarded as a leading theory in learning since the 1980s and 1990s,
overtaking behaviorist and information-processing perspectives (cited in Liu and Matthews, 2005). It
describes learning as “Learners learn by experimentation, and not by being told what will happen.
They are left to make their own inferences, discoveries and conclusions. It also emphasizes that
learning is not an ‘all or nothing’ process but that students learn the new information presented to them
by building upon knowledge that they already possess” (schoolnet.com, 2008). Due to this learning
theory, curriculums worldwide (at tertiary, secondary, and primary levels) changed gradually from
exam-based to project-based learning in the past two decades. Under this new learning approach,
students have more freedom in selecting their research topics, finding relevant sources for their
enquiries, and coming up with new knowledge as the result of their projects. Since wiki can facilitate
not only collaboration but also writing and publishing as well, its application in education has become
increasingly popular in recent years (Richardson, 2006). This includes support for writing individual
and group projects, course management and distance education (Bold, 2006; Parker & Chao, 2007).
Moreover, some teachers have used wikis software as a tool for creating teaching materials
collaboratively (Da Lio et al., 2005).
Past researches on the use of wiki software in education focused on four main areas: the rationale for
using wikis (Engstrom & Jewett, 2005; Lamb, 2004; Raman et al. 2005); collaborative learning and
writing using wikis (Bold, 2006; De Pedro et al. 2006a; De Pedro et al. 2006b; Engstrom & Jewett,
2005; Guzdial et al. 2001; Raman et al., 2005; Nicol et al. 2005); knowledge building and
management using wikis (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005; Da Lio et al., 2005; Raman et al. 2005); and
sharing and structuring of information using wikis (Aumueller, 2005; Bruns & Humphreys, 2005; Da
Lio et al., 2005; Nicol et al., 2005).
Key factors in the rationale behind the use of wikis in education, as described by Engstrom and Jewett
(2005), Lamb (2004) and Raman et al. (2005), consist of the following:
(1) Wiki is an open-source technology which is easy to install and learn. It can serve as a platform
for users to put their work together, as an online sketchpad, or a shared workspace for
brainstorming.
(2) Users are able to update information in wiki pages easily with minimal knowledge of HTML.
The updated pages can be shown immediately and automatically.
(3) Wiki pages are organized by content, and students are able to decide how to structure the
information.
(4) It is easy to go back to earlier versions if problems occur, because most wikis allow users to
trace the project progress.
(5) Some wikis permit limited access through registration, which can ensure the privacy of
members’ work. On the other hand, if no restriction is put on the access right, the readership
and/or the authorship of a wiki can be extended far beyond the organizational boundary to
many other communities around the world.
As an open-source technology, wiki provides an online workspace where thousands of web users
volunteer their time and knowledge to provide the world with a high-quality encyclopedia in their
native languages (Tapscott, 2006). In education, wiki allows students and teachers to co-construct
personalized texts in their communities (Richardson, 2006). Researchers have frequently reported
positive experiences of using wikis to facilitate collaborative learning and knowledge building (Bruns
& Humphreys, 2005; Bold, 2006; Nicol et al., 2005), which are seen as constructive processes that call
for deep constructivism where people “identify problems of understanding, establishing and refining
goals based on progress, gathering information, theorizing, designing experiments, answering
questions and improving theories, building models, monitoring and evaluating progress” (Scardamalia
& Bereiter, 2003, p. 1371). The writing of a group assignment is an excellent example of knowledge
building.
Bold (2006) employed wiki to support the completion of assignments and course management among
students of an online Master’s degree programme. Not only did the students report greater
convenience and better connection with the use of wiki, but they also showed an improvement in their
online technology skills. In De Pedro et al. (2006b)’s study on using wiki as a platform for university
students’ group projects, it was found that the wiki methodology saved time in areas such as final
checks of work before submission, group meetings and avoidance of writing similar content. In a
recent study (Chu, in press), TWiki was found to be an effective tool in facilitating students’
collaboration in their group projects at the undergraduate level. The undergraduate students have
reported a general improvement in their quality of work through better collaboration on TWiki.
However, few articles have compared the use of TWiki between different levels of study. Besides, no
articles seem to have examined whether wiki is particularly useful to part-time students as they cannot
meet other group members as frequently as full-time students. This study attempts to fill these
literature gaps by a detailed comparison between the use of TWiki by undergraduates and
postgraduates (most were part-time students).
3. Research Method
The main research questions of this study are:
(1)Is TWiki effective in facilitating student group work at undergraduate and postgraduate levels?
(2)What are the similarities and differences between the use of TWiki at undergraduate and
postgraduate level?
(3)Is TWiki particularly useful to part-time postgraduate students who have less chance to meet
their classmates face-to-face than undergraduate students?
In an attempt to address these questions, TWiki was used in both undergraduate and postgraduate
courses where students, mostly in groups of three to five, were asked to conduct a small research and
compile a report using TWiki based on their group project work. The lecturer designed Wiki templates
for the students’ projects which could be modified by students according to their needs.
The TWiki online workspace consists of three parts, namely “Progress”, “Discussion”, and “Report”.
“Progress” is a page created for students to write their draft reports, whereas the “Report” page is for
the finalized reports. Students are free to discuss any issues relating to their projects on the
“Discussion” page. The templates for “Progress” and “Report” are initially identical; students could
modify them in accordance with the design of their group report. See Figure 1 for an example of the
“Progress” and “Discussion” online template.
Figure 1. TWiki template for “group progress” and “group discussion”.
Questionnaires and interviews were conducted to examine the effectiveness of TWiki in facilitating
students’ group project work. Forty-one undergraduates (full-time BSc students) studying the course
Knowledge management responded to the questionnaires. As only a small proportion of students were
male (7 out of 41 students), the gender effect is not examined in this study. In the questionnaire, six
questions used a 5-point Likert scale, and a few were open-ended questions. Additionally, 38 BSc
students commented on the effectiveness of TWiki as an enabling technology for knowledge
management. Similar questionnaires and interview questions were also given to 21 postgraduates
(MSc students – mostly part-time students) studying the course Information Behavior. The data of BSc
and MSc students were compared to examine differences between the effectiveness of TWiki at
different level of study.
The log data of both the undergraduates and postgraduates were retrieved through the TWiki web page
to examine how frequent each student used TWiki. From the log data, it was found that one
postgraduate did not use TWiki at all. Without actually using TWiki, the comment of this student
might not be accurate and therefore this student’s data was excluded from the statistical analysis.
The data were analyzed using SPSS (Windows version 16.0). For each survey question that requires
ratings, one-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and histogram were used to test the normality of
students’ ratings. Since the results showed that the normality of data was questionable (p < 0.05 in
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and skewed histograms), non-parametric tests were used. Ratings in the
survey questions were compared between the BSc and MSc students using the Mann-Whitney test.
Possible correlations were explored among the key items examined (e.g. between improved
collaboration and enjoyment in using TWiki). A 5% level of significance was used in all statistical
tests in the study. For the open-ended questions, comments with similar meaning were grouped
together and analyzed using NVivo version 7.0.
4. Findings and Discussion

The results from the survey with both groups of students were generally positive, which point out the
positive effect and perceived importance of TWiki as a tool in facilitating better student group work,
which students can collaborate closely with each other and sharing knowledge on a web-based
platform. No significant difference was found between the comments from BSc students and MSc
students, indicating that TWiki could be an effective tool for group projects at both undergraduate and
postgraduate level of study.
In this section, a detailed evaluation on the effectiveness of TWiki to support student group projects
based on ratings from the survey will be presented. Comparisons were made between BSc and MSc
students and also more frequent and less frequent users of TWiki. The correlations between surveyed
items were also examined. This will be followed by a discussion on the capability of TWiki as a
knowledge management tool in group work. This section will end by presenting a qualitative analysis
of the positive and negative comments given by the students for both TWiki and Microsoft Word.
4.1 Effectiveness of using TWiki to support student group projects

Students responded to the questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale to evaluate the effectiveness of using
TWiki. As shown in Table 1, nearly all the mean scores of students’ ratings were above 3.0, indicating
that they found TWiki quite effective in facilitating their group projects. The ratings given by MSc
students and BSc students were compared to examine the possible differences between them.
Table 1. Student responses on the use of TWiki.

BSc students: MSc students: Results from
Mean; Median Mean; Median Mann-
Survey Questions
(95% CIa) (95% CI a) Whitney test:
(N2 = 41) (N1 = 20) p-value#
- Improvement in collaboration 3.3; 3.0 (3.1-3.6) 3.2; 3.3 (2.7-3.7) 0.928
through the use of wiki b
- Improvement in quality of the group 3.2; 3.0 (2.9-3.4) 3.2; 4.0 (2.7-3.8) 0.522
work through the use of wiki b
- Ease of using TWiki c 3.2; 3.0 (3.0-3.5) 3.0; 3.0 (2.5-3.5) 0.453
- Enjoyment in using TWiki b 3.2; 3.0 (2.9-3.5) 2.9; 3.0 (2.4-3.4) 0.373
- TWiki as a suitable tool b 3.5; 4.0 (3.2-3.8) 3.6; 3.5 (3.2-4.0) 0.857
Notes:
a
CI stands for confidence interval calculated from the given sample set. It is an estimated range of plausible values of the true
value, or the true mean of the population. A 95% CI means that there is a 95% probability that one will find the true value
in the estimated range. The width of the CI indicates the reliability of the estimation. A narrower CI indicates more reliable
result than a wider CI (Dalgaard, 2002).
b
The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”.
c
The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “very difficult” and 5 as “very easy”.
#
Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the scores given by MSc and BSc students.
4.1.1 Improved collaboration

Both the MSc students and the BSc students highly rated (mean scores of 3.2 and 3.3 respectively) the
use of TWiki in improving collaboration among group members. No significant difference was found
between the two groups of students, suggesting that both groups of students found TWiki to be quite
effective in facilitating their group projects by providing them an open workspace.
4.1.2 Improved quality of group reports
It received a mean rating of 3.2 from both the MSc and BSc students. The lack of difference between
these two ratings suggest a general improvement of quality of group reports, despite the difference in
their levels of study. Student MSc 8 commented that “TWiki allows us to modify our work on the
same platform at the same time, which helps us to avoid individual mistakes.” In an earlier research
(De Pedro et al., 2006b), comparison between the traditional method and the Wiki method of doing
group projects showed that large groups with more than 15 members obtained a better grade using the
Wiki method. Our findings indicate that Wiki method could be also beneficial to groups with smaller
number of members.
4.1.3 Ease of using TWiki

The mean scores of the ratings are 3.0 and 3.2 respectively from the MSc and BSc groups. Again,
there is no significant difference between these two mean scores. The ratings suggest that both groups
of students find it relatively easy to use TWiki in their group projects. This concurs with Foley’s study
(2006) that a web of related information can be easily created with the ease of generating pages and
adding linked content in wiki systems.
4.1.4 Enjoyment in using TWiki

There was no significant difference in enjoyment levels between MSc and BSc students. Generally
speaking, the average ratings for enjoyment were lower than other surveyed items. Student MSc 3
pointed out that formatting their work in TWiki was time-consuming and Student MSc 19 mentioned
about difficulties in posting materials. These suggest that there is still room for improvement on the
features and functions of TWiki for enhancing students’ enjoyment in using it.
4.1.5 TWiki as a suitable tool for doing group projects

Again, no significant difference was found between the ratings from MSc and BSc students. Both MSc
and BSc students strongly agreed that TWiki is a suitable tool for doing group projects (mean scores of
3.6 and 3.5 respectively). According to Student MSc 13, TWiki is a good platform that allows
members to check up on the latest work progress at the same time and therefore it is suitable for them
to co-construct their work.
It is noteworthy that one of the groups with 4 members in the postgraduate course encountered many
problems in uploading their work to TWiki and their ratings for TWiki were negatively affected by the
technical problems they encountered. Follow-up interviews were conducted with these 4 students and
they were asked to rate the items again while assuming that there were no technical problems.
Statistical analysis was launched again using the ratings of these 4 students from the follow-up
interviews and results were summarized in Table 2:
Table 2. Student responses on the use of TWiki (with the 4 MSc students assuming that there were no
technical problems).
BSc students: MSc students: Results from
Mean; Median Mean; Median Mann-
Survey Questions
(95% CIa) (95% CI a) Whitney test:
(N2 = 41) (N1 = 20) p-value#
- Improvement in collaboration 3.3; 3.0 (3.1-3.6) 3.3; 3.5 (2.8-3.8) 0.811
through the use of wiki b
- Improvement in quality of the group 3.2; 3.0 (2.9-3.4) 3.3; 4.0 (2.8-3.8) 0.325
work through the use of wiki b
- Ease of using TWiki c 3.2; 3.0 (3.0-3.5) 3.1; 3.0 (2.6-3.6) 0.677
Notes:
Refer to Table 1 for explanation.
As compared to Table 1, the mean of rating on each surveyed item given by the MSc students became
higher. This implies that TWiki could be more beneficial to students if they encounter less technical
problems.
4.2 Comparison between frequent and less frequent users of TWiki

To examine whether frequent and less frequent users will hold different opinions about TWiki,
students are divided into three groups, namely the more frequent users, moderate frequent users and
less frequent users, according to their frequency of using TWiki. The ratings of more frequent users
and less frequent users are analyzed (see Table 3).
Table 3. Comparing students’ ratings on TWiki by their frequency in using it.

More Frequent Users Less Frequent Users Results from
Survey Questions Mean; Median Mean; Median Mann-Whitney
(95% CI) (95% CI) test: p-value
BSc students1: (N1 = 14) (N2 = 14)
- Improved collaboration using wiki a 3.2; 3.0 (2.9-3.7) 3.3; 3.5 (2.7-3.9) 0.961
- Improved quality using wiki a 2.9; 3.0 (2.4-3.3) 3.2; 3.0 (2.7-3.8) 0.321
- Ease of using TWiki b 3.2; 3.0 (2.8-3.6) 3.4; 3.5 (2.9-3.8) 0.548
MSc students2: (N1 = 6) (N2 = 5)
- Improved quality using wiki a 2.2; 2.0 (1.0-3.4) 3.9; 4.0 (2.8-5.0) 0.031*
- Enjoyment in using TWiki b 2.2; 2.0 (1.1-3.2) 3.2; 3.0 (2.6-3.8) 0.044*
Overall3: (N1 = 20) (N2 = 19)
- Improved quality using wiki a 2.7; 3.0 (2.2-3.1) 3.4; 4.0 (2.9-3.9) 0.029*
- Enjoyment in using TWiki b 2.8; 3.0 (2.4-3.2) 3.5;3.0 (3.1-3.9) 0.036*
- TWiki as a suitable tool b 3.3; 3.0 (2.9-3.6) 3.7;4.0 (3.3-4.1) 0.043*
Notes:
1
From the 41 BSc students, 14 students who used TWiki for 16 times or more were grouped as the relatively more frequent
users, 14 students who used TWiki for 1 to 5 times were grouped as the less frequent users, and the remaining 13 students
were grouped as the moderate frequent users.
2
From the 20 MSc students, 6 students who used TWiki for 20 times or more were grouped as the more frequent users, 5 of
them who used TWiki for 1 to 8 times were grouped as the less frequent users, and the remaining were grouped as the
moderate frequent users.
3
The more frequent users from BSc and MSc students were grouped together to form the new group of more frequent users
and the less frequent users from both group of students were grouped together to form the new group of less frequent users.
a
The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”.
b
The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “very difficult” and 5 as “very easy”.
* Ratings from Group 1 and 2 were significantly different as shown by the Mann-Whitney test at 5% significance level.
For BSc students, although no significant difference is found, the more frequent users generally gave
lower ratings than the less frequent users. For MSc students, significant differences between more
frequent users and less frequent users are found in two surveyed items. Students who used TWiki
frequently gave significantly lower ratings for the use of TWiki in improving the quality of their work
than those who seldom used it (p=0.031).The ratings for enjoyment in using TWiki given by the more
frequent users are also significantly lower than that given by the less frequent users (p=0.044).
Similar results are found when the ratings of both BSc and MSc students are compared and significant
differences are noted in three of the surveyed items. The more frequent users gave significantly lower
ratings for the use of TWiki in improving the quality of their work (p=0.029). The ratings for
enjoyment in using TWiki given by the more frequent users are also significantly lower than that given
by the less frequent users (p=0.036). In addition, ratings on TWiki as a suitable tool given by students
who used TWiki more frequently are significantly lower than that given by the less frequent users
(p=0.043).
The findings seem to suggest that increased experience in using TWiki leads to lower ratings. This is
reasonable in a sense that students with limited experience in using TWiki might have imagined TWiki
to be a perfect tool for group projects. When students became more familiar with TWiki, the
fascinating myths about TWiki were shattered and replaced by their more realistic perception of
TWiki. Therefore, students using the tool frequently might find it less useful than what they originally
believed.
4.3 Correlations between surveyed items
The data collected from the students are further analyzed to examine relationships between the
variables. Significant correlations are found between a numbers of variables. The correlation
coefficients and the p-value of the significant correlations at 5% level of significance are presented in
the following table:
Table 4. Significant correlations between variables.

Variables Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) p-value
BSc students (N=41):
1. Improved collaboration vs. 0.389 0.012
Improved quality of group reports
Ease of using TWiki
3. Improved collaboration vs. 0.544 <0.001
Enjoyment in using TWiki
TWiki as a suitable tool
5. Enjoyment in using TWiki vs. 0.462 0.002
Ease of using TWiki
7. TWiki as a suitable tool vs. 0.583 <0.001
8. Frequency of using TWiki vs. -0.353 0.024
MSc students (N=20):
4. TWiki as a suitable tool vs. 0.539 0.014
Overall (N=61):
Ease of using TWiki
TWiki as a suitable tool
5. Enjoyment in using TWiki vs. 0.555 <0.001
6. Enjoyment in using TWiki vs. 0.487 <0.001
Ease of using TWiki
7. TWiki as a suitable tool vs. 0.394 0.002
Note: According to Ravid (1994), a correlation with r = 0.2 – 0.39 is considered as a low correlation, a correlation with r =
0.4 – 0.59 is regarded as a moderate correlation and a correlation with r = 0.6 – 0.79 is regarded as a strong correlation.
For BSc students, significant correlation is found between improved collaboration and four other
variables: (1) improved quality of group reports (r = 0.389, p = 0.012); (2) ease of using TWiki (r =
0.382, p = 0.014); (3) Enjoyment in using TWiki (r = 0.544, p < 0.001); and (4) TWiki as a suitable
tool for doing group projects (r = 0.571, p < 0.001). This indicates that while the use of TWiki
enhanced collaboration among group members, the quality of their work and their enjoyment level in
using TWiki were also improved. The collaboration between group members was improved when
students found TWiki easy to use, and they would find TWiki as a suitable tool for doing group
projects. Enjoyment in using TWiki is found to be positively correlated with three other varibles: (1)
improved quality of group reports (r = 0.462, p = 0.002); (2) ease of using TWiki (r = 0.518, p =
0.001); and (3) TWiki as a suitable tool (r = 0.583, p < 0.001). In other words, students tended to enjoy
using TWiki more when they found it able to improve the quality of their reports and easy to use.
Students would consider TWiki as a suitable tool for doing group projects when they enjoyed using it.
Interestingly, a significant negative correlation is found between frequency of using TWiki and
improved quality of group reports (r =-0.353, p = 0.024). This is consistent with the findings in the
previous section that frequent users found TWiki less useful than less frequent users.
For MSc students, it is found that the improved collaboration had a significant positive correlation
with the improved quality of group reports (r = 0.650, p = 0.002). This indicates that while the use of
TWiki enhanced collaboration among group members, the quality of their work was also improved.
There is a significant positive correlation between the enjoyment in using TWiki and improved
collaboration (r = 0.656, p = 0.002). In other words, enjoyment in using TWiki increased while
collaboration between group members increased. Enjoyment in using TWiki is also found to be
positively correlated with improved quality of group projects (r = 0.705, p = 0.001). The statistically
significant strong correlation indicated that students’ level of enjoyment in using TWiki is closely
related to the improvement in their group reports. Significant positive correlations are found between
TWiki as a suitable tool and (1) improved quality of group reports (r = 0.539, p = 0.014); (2)
enjoyment in using TWiki (r =0.718, p < 0.001). It could imply that students found TWiki a suitable
tool for doing group projects as they perceived improvement in the quality of their reports and when
they enjoyed using TWiki. A significant negative correlation is also found between frequency of using
TWiki and improved quality of group reports (r =-0.487, p = 0.029).
The results are largely similar when the ratings of both BSc and MSc students are considered together.
Significant correlations are found between improved collaboration and four other variables: (1)
improved quality of group reports (r =0.507, p < 0.001); (2) ease of using TWiki (r =0.259, p = 0.044);
(3) enjoyment in using TWiki (r =0.592, p < 0.001); and (4) TWiki as a suitable tool (r = 0.502, p <
0.001). Besides, enjoyment in using TWiki is found to be positively correlated with (1) improved
quality of group reports (r =0.555, p < 0.001); (2) ease of using TWiki (r = 0.487, p < 0.001) and (3)
TWiki as a suitable tool (r =0.606, p < 0.001). Interestingly, negative correlations are found between
frequency of using TWiki and (1) improved quality of group reports (r =-0.380, p = 0.003); (2)
enjoyment in using TWiki (r =-0.292, p = 0.022). This is again consistent with the previous findings
that more frequent users gave significantly lower ratings for TWiki in improving the quality of their
work and enjoyment in using TWiki.
4.4. TWiki as a knowledge management tool
Thirty-eight BSc students and 20 MSc students commented on TWiki as an enabling tool for
knowledge on a 5-point Likert. Two aspects of knowledge management, namely knowledge creation
and knowledge sharing, were examined in the questionnaire. According to Stuhlman (2006),
knowledge creation is “a process that results in new knowledge” (Knowledge creation section, para. 1)
and knowledge sharing is a process of “exchange of knowledge” (Sharing section, para. 1). As shown
in Figure 2, both MSc and BSc students rated TWiki positively for the two aspects and the average
ratings range from 3.5 to 4.2.
Figure 2. Student’s ratings on knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.
Ratings on TWiki as a Knowledge Management Tool
5.0
4.0
Mean Score
3.0 BSc students

2.0 3.8 4.2 3.9 MSc students
3.5
1.0
0.0
Knowledge Creation Knowledge Sharing
Aspects of Knowledge Management
Note: The respondents were answering according to a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 as “not at all” and 5 as “very much so”.
The ratings of BSc students and MSc students are analyzed by Mann-Whitney test to examine any
possible differences. No significant difference is found between the two groups of students. This
suggested that students at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels considered TWiki as a useful
tool in knowledge management.
Comparing students’ ratings on knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, students gave
significantly lower ratings to knowledge creation (p < 0.001). This indicates that in students’
perspective, TWiki could work most effectively to provide a platform for them to share knowledge
and information. According to Student MSc 1, TWiki allows for effective communication which helps
with the interaction between group members and improvement of one’s work. The openness of
different groups’ work also facilitates brainstorming and knowledge sharing. Another student, MSc 13,
stated that TWiki is a convenient tool for knowledge creation and the design of the platform also
allows excellent knowledge sharing.
4.5 Using TWiki in the future
The implementation of TWiki does not only facilitate a short-term student group project, but it also
has long-term effects on students. In the survey, 37 BSc students and 20 MSc students responded on
the possibility of adopting TWiki for future work and/or personal usage (see Figure 3 and 4).
Figure 3. BSc students’ reponses on using TWiki for work and personal reasons in the future.
BSc students' responses on using TWiki in the future
22%
51% Yes
27% No
Depends
Note: The data is collected from 37 BSc students.
Figure 3 shows that 51% of the BSc students (19 out of 37) would consider using TWiki for work and
personal usage in the future. Among the BSc students, 22% (8 out of 37) expressed that the use of
TWiki in the future depends on other factors, such as the nature of the task and the working
organization’s practice. The remaining 27% of the BSc students (10 out of 37) believed that they
would not use TWiki in the future. A main reason is that they were not sure how to apply TWiki in
other situations. This suggests that students need more training on TWiki so that they know the ways
in which they can transfer their knowledge of using it on an academic project to a work related project
or personal task.
Figure 4. MSc students’ reponses on using TWiki for work and personal reasons in the future.
MSc students' reponses on using TWiki in the future
20%
Yes
55%
25% No
Depends
Note: The data is collected from 20 MSc students.
For the MSc students, 55% (11 out of 20) would continue to use TWiki in the future for either work or
personal usage while 20% (4 out of 20) believed that the use of TWiki in the future depends on other
factors such as other group members’ IT knowledge. Similar to BSc students, 25% (5 out of 20) of the
MSc students believed that they would not use TWiki in the future.
Overall, more than half of the students would continue to use TWiki in the future. The results show
that students are in favour of this new technology and would consider using it on their own. This
implies that TWiki is not only beneficial to short-term group projects, but also to the long-term
development of the students.
4.6 Comparison between TWiki and Microsoft Word
Students’ responses to the open-ended questions in the survey were qualitatively analyzed in regards
of their opinions on TWiki and Microsoft Word (see Table 6) for creating a group report.
Table 6. Positive and negative comments given by BSc and MSc students to TWiki and MS Word.
TWiki Traditional way for group project - MS Word
Positive Comments (No. of Students):
BSc students • Facilitates collaboration of group work (20) • Easy formatting (8)
• Able to keep track of others’ working progress • More advanced functions (5)
(7) • User-friendly interface (4)
• Facilitates knowledge sharing (7) • Higher familiarity (3)
• Able to receive comments from others (6) • No networking problem (2)
• Able to work anywhere at any time (4)
• Saves time (3)
• Facilitates communication within the group (2)
• Able to keep track of different versions (2)
• Others (3)
MSc students • Facilitates collaboration of group work (10) • Higher familiarity (6)
• Facilitates knowledge sharing (10) • Able to work individually according to
• Facilitates communication within the group (8) one’s own schedule (1)
• Able to keep track of others’ working progress • Allows easier facilitation of work (1)
(7) • High Security of documents (1)
• Able to work anywhere at any time • The advanced MS Word has the same
(7) functions as TWiki (1)
• Able to keep track of different versions (6) • User-friendly interface (1)
• Able to refer to other groups for learning (6)
• Convenient to use (5)
• Easy to use (3)
• Saves time (3)
• Improves the efficiency of work (2)
• Others (3)
Negative Comments (No. of Students):

BSc students • Difficulty in formatting (5) • Only allows individual work (7)
• Time consuming to learn about the editing tools • Overdependence on sending documents by
(4) emails (5)
• Technical problems, e.g. server • Difficult to share with other people (3)
problem (3) • Cannot track others' work progress (2)
• Others (2) • Time consuming to combine members'
work (2)
• Others (1)
MSc students • Difficulty in formatting (13) • Overdependence on sending documents by
• Technical problems, e.g. server problem (7) emails (4)
• Unfamiliar to use (5) • Difficult to identity each member’s
• Time consuming to learn about the editing tools contribution (3)
(4) • Only allows individual work (1)
• Difficult to use (3) • Cannot compare with older versions (1)
• Insufficient training provided (3)
• Insufficient functions comparing to alternatives
(2)
• Not user-friendly (2)
• Others (2)
Note: Data collected from 20 MSc and 41 BSc students.
Similar to the findings of section 4.1, students consider TWiki as an effective tool to facilitate their
group project work with 49%1 (20 out of 41) BSc students and 50% (10 out of 20) MSc students
mentioned that TWiki is effective in facilitating collaboration in their group work. Among the MSc
students, 50% (10 out of 20) also said that TWiki is useful for knowledge sharing and 40% (8 out of
20) expressed that TWiki facilitates communication within group. However, 65% (13 out of 20) MSc
students claimed difficulty in formatting on TWiki and 20% (4 out of 20) pointed out that it is time-
consuming to learn about the new tool.
Both groups of students gave some positive comments to Microsoft Word, but the number of positive
comments was a lot fewer when compared with TWiki. Among the BSc students, 20% (8 out of 41)
mentioned that they could format their work easily with MS Word and 30% (6 out of 20) MSc
students expressed that they are highly familiar with MS Word. Regarding the more negative
comments, 17% (7 out of 41) BSc students pointed out that MS Word only works well for individual
task and 20% (5 out of 20) MSc students said that they need to rely mainly on e-mail in transferring
files among the group members.
It is noteworthy that in general MSc students had a less pleasant experience with TWiki and they gave
more negative comments than BSc students with regard to this wiki tool. Among the MSc students,
65% (13 out of 20) mentioned difficulty in formatting while only 12% BSc students (5 out of 41)
noted this problem. Besides, 20% MSc students (4 out of 20) expressed that it is time-consuming to
learn about TWiki but only 10% (5 out of 41) BSc students did. This is contrary to the researchers’
original belief that the part-time MSc students would find TWiki more useful since they have less
chance to meet and TWiki can supplement their face-to-face discussion and physical workspace with
an online work environment.
A possible explanation for MSc students’ less positive experience with TWiki is that most of them
were busy with their careers and they could not devote as much time as the full-time BSc students to
familiarize themselves with TWiki. Besides, the MSc students are older (25 to 35 years old) than the
BSc students (around 20 years old). In general, younger people are more well-versed with new
technology and therefore the BSc students could become familiar with TWiki quickly. In addition, as
mentioned earlier, a particular group of MSc students encountered many uploading problems in TWiki.
This had certainly affected their comments on the effectiveness of TWiki.
1
Since students’ comments on the effectiveness of TWiki in facilitating their group works were collected
through an open-ended question on a comparison between TWiki and MS Word, not all students gave a remark
regarding this. This also applies to students’ comments on other items in this section.
5. Conclusion and Implications
Both undergraduate and postgraduate students found TWiki effective in supporting them to do their
group project work. The students rated positively on the effectiveness of TWiki in improving
collaboration among group members and in improving quality of the group work. They found TWiki
relatively easy to use and they considered it as a suitable tool for doing group projects. Both student
groups viewed TWiki as an enabling tool for knowledge management and they rated it positively in
facilitating knowledge creation and knowledge sharing. The majority in both groups also indicated that
they would continue to use TWiki in the future for either work or personal usage. Since this study
shows that TWiki is helpful for group project work at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, it may
also be useful for students in other levels of studies (e.g., secondary or even primary).
Overall, the MSc students viewed TWiki less favorably when compared to the BSc students though
most of the differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. There could be three
possible reasons that have caused the differences: (1). One MSc group encountered quite a lot of
technical problems uploading their materials onto TWiki; (2). Most MSc students work full-time and
so they have less time to learn new tools like TWiki and (3). MSc students, who are older than the BSc
students, were less well-versed in new technologies.
To enhance students’ experience with TWiki, it is foremost for software developers to fix the
uploading problem and other problems reported in this article as soon as possible. Although both
groups of students found TWiki better than the traditional tool (MS Word) in doing group project
work, they pointed out quite a few desirable features in MS Word that are not available in TWiki.
Besides, they found that it is easier to format their works in MS Word than in TWiki. Much work
needs to be done in upgrading the functions and features of TWiki so that it can truly become an
“ideal” tool for group project work online.
Lastly, this study carries implication on training more mature and busy people, like the MSc students
in the study, to become comfortable with a technological tool such as TWiki. They need more
comprehensive, tailor designed training and assistance as they are less familiar with new technologies
and they cannot afford much time to explore the tool by themselves.
6. References
Aumueller, D. (2005). Semantic authoring and retrieval within a Wiki. Paper presented at the
European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC).
Bold, M. (2006). Use of wikis in graduate course work. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17,
5-14.
Bruns, A., & Humphreys, S. (2005). Wikis in teaching and assessment: The M/Cyclopedia project. .
Paper presented the 2005 International Symposium on Wikis, San Diego, CA, U.S.A.
Chu, S. (in press). TWiki for knowledge building and management. Online Information Review.
Da Lio, E., Fraboni, L. L., & Leo, T. (2005). TWiki-based facilitation in a newly formed academic
community of practice. Paper presented at the 2005 international symposium on Wikis.
Dalgaard, P. (2002). Introductory Statistics With R. New York: Springer.
De Pedro, X., Rieradevall, M., López, P., Sant, D., Piñol, J., Núñez, Ll., Llobera, M. (2006a). Writing
documents collaboratively in higher education using traditional vs. wiki methodology (II):
Quantitative results from a 2-year project study. Paper presented at the 4th International
Congress of University Teaching and Innovation.
De Pedro, X., Rieradevall, M., López, P., Sant, D., Piñol, J., Núñez, L. (2006b). Writing documents
collaboratively in Higher education using Traditional vs. Wiki methodology (I): Qualitative
results from a 2-year project study. Paper presented at the 4th International Congress of
University Teaching and Innovation.
Ebersbach, A., Glaser, M., & Heigi, R. (2006). Wiki Web Collaboration. New York: Springer.
Engstrom, M. E., & Jewett, D. (2005). Collaborative Learning: The wiki way. TechTrends, 49, 12-68.
Foley, B., & Chang, T. (2006, April 10). Wiki as a professional development tool. Paper presented at
the American Education Research Association annual meeting.
Guzdial, M., Rick, J., & Kehoe, C. (2001). Beyond adoption to invention: Teacher-created
collaborative activities in Higher Education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 265-279.
Lamb, A. (2004). Wide open spaces wikis ready or not. Educause Review, 39, 36-48.
Liu, H. & Matthews, R. S. (2005). Vygotsky's philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms examined.
International Education Journal, 6, 386-399.
Nicol, D., Littlejohn, A., & Grierson, H. (2005). The importance of structuring information and
resources within shared workspaces during collaborative design learning. Open Learning, 20,
31-49.
Parker, K. R., & Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a Teaching Tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge
and Learning Objects, 3, 57-72.
Ravid, R. (1994). Practical statistics for educators. Lanham: University Press of America.
Raman, M., Ryan, T., & Olfman, L. (2005). Designing knowledge management systems for teaching
and learning with wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16, 311-320.
Raygan, R. E., & Green, D. G. (2002). Internet Collaboration: TWiki. SoutheastCon, Proceedings
IEEE, 137-141.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms.
Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge Building. In Encyclopedia of Education, (Vol. 3,
1370-1373. New York: Macmillan Reference, USA.
Schoolnet.com (2008). K12 Wiki - Constructivism (learning theory). Retrieved Feb 8, 2008 from
http://www.schoolnet.com/Wikis/pages/wikiarticle.aspx?wikiid=1466
Stuhlman, D. (2006). Knowledge Management Terms. Retrieved Jun 26, 2008 from
http://home.earthlink.net/~ddstuhlman/defin1.htm
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A.D. (2006). Wikinomics: How Mass Colalboration Changes Everything.
New York: Portfolio.
TWiki (2007). TWiki - the Open Source Wiki for the Enterprise. Retrieved Dec 1, 2007 from
http://twiki.org/

Chu 2008 Student's Co-Construction of Group Project Work Via Twiki

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chu 2008 Student's Co-Construction of Group Project Work Via Twiki

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chu S., Cheung J., Ma, Ma L. and Leung D (2008).

Student’s Co-Construction of Group Project Work

Title: Students’ co-construction of group project work via TWiki

John Ngai Cheung

Lisa Duan Yang Ma

David Wilck Ka Wai Leung

Keywords TWiki, Knowledge Creation, Knowledge Sharing, Wiki, Collaborative work

Figure 1. TWiki template for “group progress” and “group discussion”.

4. Findings and Discussion

4.1 Effectiveness of using TWiki to support student group projects

Table 1. Student responses on the use of TWiki.

4.1.1 Improved collaboration

4.1.3 Ease of using TWiki

4.1.4 Enjoyment in using TWiki

4.1.5 TWiki as a suitable tool for doing group projects

4.2 Comparison between frequent and less frequent users of TWiki

Table 3. Comparing students’ ratings on TWiki by their frequency in using it.

Table 4. Significant correlations between variables.

Figure 2. Student’s ratings on knowledge creation and knowledge sharing.

Ratings on TWiki as a Knowledge Management Tool

3.0 BSc students

BSc students' responses on using TWiki in the future

Note: The data is collected from 37 BSc students.

MSc students' reponses on using TWiki in the future

Note: The data is collected from 20 MSc students.

Negative Comments (No. of Students):

You might also like