Charles OlbertWeb ManagerUNC Center for European Studiescharles@charlesolbert.com

GOALS:• Understand wikis conceptually• Consider educational applications• Obtain experience using and implementing wikis• Gain some fluency in thinking about issues specific to education and pedagogy

Bottom Line: Know whether wikis are right for you

PROBLEMS:

How do you use the internet in an engaging, interesting, genuinely interactive way?

How can you use the “non-locality” of the internet to your advantage to work collaboratively?

What is it like to use the internet?

What was it like in the mid/late 1990s?

• Static webpages• Look, but don’t touch

RESTAURANT Static list of menu options Menu determined by the chef Food cooked behind closed doors Power relations pre-determined (critics,

managers, owners) One-to-Many development

WEB 1.0 Static list of site contents Content determined by the webpage author(s) Site content developed independently from site

users Power relations pre-determined (feedback forms, owners, authors) One-to-Many development Interactivity limited to clicks, email, search

METAPHORS• Museum• Magazine• Lecture Class

INTERNET AS LEARNING TOOL• Museum metaphor (to some extent)• Note taking from authoritative source• Passive intake• Why prefer over “hard copy” resources?• Barriers to entry for student use (hosting, code

knowledge, access)

INTERNET AS COLLABORATIVE TOOL

How is it any different from printing a file and handing it to a colleague?

Why prefer electrons over hard copies?

Lack of genuine interactivity

KITCHEN No list of pre-determined options Recipes developed by individuals Developed with others in kitchen Power relations up for grabs Many-to-Many development

METAPHORS• Playground• Lego sets• Improv Theatre

“Web 2.0 is a term often applied to a perceived ongoing transition of the World Wide Web from a collection of static websites to a full-fledged computing platform serving web applications to end users.”

-- Tim O’Reilly

(widely credited with coining the term “web 2.0”)

WEB 1.0 WEB 2.0 Reading WritingCompanies/Individuals CommunitiesHome pages BlogsOwnership SharingLectures ConversationsEncyclopedias WikipediaStatic DynamicInternet as Product Internet as Process

GOAL: To create genuinely interactive, interesting applications on the internet.

PROBLEM: How do you do it?

BARRIERS TO ENTRY:

Dynamic?Collaborative?Process-Oriented?AND with minimal resources?

*** Problem AreasCODE KNOWLEDGEPLATFORM INDEPENDENCEHOSTING

CLAIM:

Wikis are one pretty good, pretty accessible resource for achieving some of these goals with minimal investment.

“A wiki is a website where every page can be edited in a web browser, by whomever happens to be reading it.” – Tom Stafford, Matt Webb

“A wiki allows a group of people to enter and communally edit bits of text. These bits of text can be viewed and edited by anyone who visits the wiki.” – Marshall Brain

“A wiki is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language” – Wikipedia

A wiki is, essentially, just a collaborative, fully editable website.

Components:1.Collaboration: “anyone” can add, edit, link, even

delete2.Simplicity: light, easy to use “markup language”

(no need to know html/php/etc.)3.Soft Security: automatic backups, revision

histories

Same elements of normal webpage: links, text, images – Same versatility as a normal webpageBUT:• links to editor• links to revision history

Wikis make it easy to correct mistakes rather than difficult to make them.

Hand authority over to a group culture: bottom-up “soft” security rather than top-down “hard” security.

Good for developing content, less good for developing style (writing or visual).

Wikis versus blogs versus “home pages”:

Homepages – pre-defined content, no system for indicating change. Implied single author (one who knows html or a designer).

Blogs – additive content in one dimension (time). Implied singular author.

Wikis – undefined structure (until users impose it on their own terms). No pre-defined implied author.

BIG DEAL? Anyone can edit – is that revolutionary?

YES!

Moves from model of authority to model of trust and community.

Achieves shift in technology through shift in philosophy.

BIG DEAL? Anyone can edit – is that revolutionary?

YES!

Demonstrates that learning need not be based on receiving “word from on high” or by a solitary individual reading a book.

Learning can happen in a community, collaboratively.

BIG DEAL? Anyone can edit – is that revolutionary?

YES!

Challenges students to think hard about issues of knowledge creation, community, and compromise.

Who owns wiki content? How do you negotiate changes? How do you identify non-neutral points of view?

BIG DEAL? Anyone can edit – is that revolutionary?

"...The biggest thing about these self-publishing tools is that they’re self-publishing... You don’t need to be a geek to be able to publish to the ‘net anymore - and this stuff has the potential to “fix” the web, which was supposed to be a dynamic network of linked content published by individuals, but got co-opted into a variation of the TV broadcast model, with users sitting in front of glowing screens receiving the content that The Man wants to feed them. Instead, we can effectively publish our own content, with whatever authority we can muster."

-- D'Arcy Norman

WEB 1.0 Pages Wiki Pages Authority CommunityOpacity TransparencyHigh Barrier to Entry Low Barrier to

EntryOwnership Contribution

Wikis maximize interplay. Wikis are democratic Wikis work in real time. Wiki technology is text-based Wikis permit public document construction (distributed authorship) Wikis complicate the evaluation of writing Wikis promote negotiation Wikis permit collaborative document editing, or open editing. Wikis make feedback intensely public and potentially durable. Wikis work on volunteer collaboration..

From dossiers practiques by Renée Fountain

http://wiki.charlesolbert.com/First: Create an account(link is at upper right)

Then you should see something like this:

http://wiki.charlesolbert.com/Second: pick a page to editThe editor looks like this:

Mouse-over the buttons for a briefdescription of what they do. Then playaround and create/edit!

http://wiki.charlesolbert.com/Third: take a look at the revision history

Creating a wiki using athird-party application

http://sites.google.com/

Type your email addressin the box and click on“Get Started” button

http://sites.google.com/

Once you fill in theform, you will besent an email forverification.

http://sites.google.com/ Next: sign in.

Then: find ‘sites’ link at right and click through

http://sites.google.com/

Site Name

Categories

Description

Access Rules

Displayproperties

http://sites.google.com/

Creating andediting pages isstraightforward.

Google Sites’editor is a littlemore familiarthan MediaWiki’s.

http://sites.google.com/

Access controlsseem reasonablein terms offunctionality.

Administratorsand parents canbe invited asviewers.

FOR TEACHERS• Collaborative syllabi• Tracking progress/behavior across classrooms• Meeting planning / agenda creation• Event planning• Collaborating with other/international schools• Develop a database of lesson plans

“Using the wiki has allowed us to share and collaborate on the research that we would have otherwise done individually”

FOR STUDENTS• Collaborative projects• “Process-oriented” writing tool (track changes)• Connecting with other schools or students,

nationally or internationally• Peer editing / review• Teaching consensus & compromise• Building outlines and reference lists• Annotating longer works/poems/stories• Creating online bibliographies• Adopt a Wikipedia page• Online “study groups”

“In all instances, the users decided for themselves how the wiki would fulfill their objectives. Technical support and training was minimal: at most, one hour of instruction was needed, and in most cases, orientation was handled by a single email.”

Brian Lamb

VANDALISMThe power to create entails the power

to destroy: in other words, “if anybody can edit my text, then

anybody can ruin my text.” (Vandalism is most likely

to happen on wikis that

involve controversial topics)

VANDALISM

BUT: You have the power to revert to previous versions in the edit history.

You can also track who made what changes.

Define vandalism and clearly specify consequences. Accountability is key.

Discourage deletion. Encourage “refactoring”

PARTICIPATIONMajor factor in success/failure of wikis.

Assessment that supports collaboration:• Assess process AND product• Group marks• Strong individual marks• Peer assessment

Clearly define expectations and have a transparent system for assessment that you discuss up-front (i.e., explain why).

ASSESSMENT ISSUES

• Minor edits can have bigger than anticipated effects.

• Edits & Improvements vs. content• Rewrites vs. core ideas

Comfort Level

TEACHER COMFORT• Giving up authority• Yet closely monitoring• Ensuring student privacy/safety• Fluency with software

STUDENT COMFORT• Feeling good making contributions• Making edits directly to others’ work/contributions• Fluency with software

Openness, Context

The amount of monitoring and moderating required by wikis will depend on the context.

Collaborating with other teachers can be more free-wheeling and open than using wikis to monitor process-oriented writing.

YOUR SCHOOL’S POLICY:• Can you post student work on the web?• Can you use student names/initials?• Can you post class pictures?• What is the policy on posting info that might

identify the class online?• Can these policies be met through security

settings, parent and student agreements?• Are the wiki tools that you want to use blocked

by your school’s filter? (and: can they be unblocked?)

“The best ways to get parents excited about your wiki are to inform them and to include them.”

-- TeachersFirst

Keep pages private to ensure security.

Allow parent access as requested?

(Some wikis allow ‘view only’ members, which is a good solution for allowing parents access to the wiki without worrying that they’ll start making edits.)

“Wikis are at their best when a small number of people are working intensely on related material. They're messy, immediate, and a powerful way of sharing thinking space with your collaborators.” – Tom Stafford & Matt Webb

Wikis require further effort:

Technology does not always change practices by itself. Students will not leap to collaborate just because the tool allows for it.

charles@charlesolbert.com

wiki.charlesolbert.com

UNC Center for European StudiesEuropean Union Center of Excellence

www.euce.org