The Moss-Free Stone

Some good thoughts on wikis in an article by Amy Standen of Edutopia entitled “A Glorified Whiteboard.” Amy shares a great quote by Wikispaces co-founder Adam Frey, who describes a wiki as “a Web page with an Edit button on it.” What a great description! In essence, a wiki allows a user with minimal word-processing skills to create pages or add content. No deep technical training or skills are required.

Personally, wikis address a common need I hear from teachers: How can my kids make their own web pages? In the past, this would require a lesson (or two, or three, or…) on software ranging from Publisher to Frontpage to Contribute to Dreamweaver. Each had its own issues, such as a steep learning curve, incompatability with the district’s servers, inability to include more advanced features, and the like. Wikis include ample resources for the advanced users, are easy enough to train a class of beginners in one session, and take the server out of the picture, at least when web-based. They are also, obviously, very cost-effective (free), which is always a plus in school budget world. Standen also offers this statement by Frey:

“I hesitate when people say it’s a new paradigm,” says Frey. “Look at the blackboard, which has been in the classroom since who knows when. A wiki is really a glorified whiteboard — anyone can add to it, change it. This isn’t something that teachers have to evolve to adopt; it’s simply an extension of that technology.”

And that it is–a whiteboard that is accessible anywhere with an Internet connection, one that can be “written” on by a multitude of contributors, and one that can be re-visited again and again.

Still, there are some issues that must be addressed when using wikis. The biggest two are, in my mind, access and accountability.

Access

While the percentage of students who have access to the Internet at home, school, or both continues to climb, we are far from having equality of access for all. School access is often limited to times in computer labs, which may be hard to schedule in a competitive, technology-friendly school. Home computers are certainly less accessible in lower income areas than in more affluent ones, meaning many students’ only access comes while at school. Realistic expectations must exist if teachers are unwilling/unable to schedule the needed instructional time for working on a group wiki. It may be difficult, perhaps even unfair, to base assessment, for example, on the amount of time/content group members put into a wiki, unless the bulk of work is done during the school day.

Accountability

Frey puts forth a couple of challenges to educators who wish to use wikis. The first is that teachers must be willing to let others (specifically students) to become co-contributors to the curriculum.

“According to Frey, some teachers find that wikis demand a small but important mental adjustment: No matter what role wikis play in the classroom, teachers have to be comfortable with the idea that no one person is solely responsible for their content.”

This also points to the fact that a truly effective wiki is not a one-time event, which students complete and never visit again. It is a living, evolving tool that is used by its creators and future visitors/contributors as a curriculum resource. A website is only good if it is of use to someone, preferably for longer than a moment. Students can use wikis to create pages that help others learn, which, in actuality, helps teachers teach.

Frey also contends that students need a lot of liberty with regards to their content. My own limited experience tends to lean towards giving students limited access, with any changes being heavily moderated. Frey states this well.

“Wikis work best when you trust your audience, in a trust-and-verify model. Traditionally, the approach to these kinds of tools has been, ‘Let’s make sure only the right people access it, that entries are moderated, that comments are approved before posted.’ But the wiki model doesn’t really work that way. Wikis work best when everyone is allowed to contribute the way that’s best for them, and the group moderates that information.”

Standen says this means actually trusting students. This is hard for most teachers, who fear inaccurate or inappropriate student contributions. I think a balance must exist, and teachers must be the ones ultimately responsible for content. This can be achieved by regularly visiting/assessing pages. Student content quality is best insured, however, by teaching students about the importance of quality, the dimensions of their potential audience, and the potentially good/bad effects they can have on site visitors. Once students understand this, they will monitor themselves, and the quality of their wikis will reflect well on their teachers, their schools, and themselves.

Technorati Tags: web2.0 wiki wikis instruction education internet