Collaborative learning with a wiki: Differences in perceived usefulness in two contexts of use
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the potential of a wiki (FlexWiki) to support collaborative authoring of web resources in authentic coursework by two different sets of education students at different stages of their professional development. Research questions included: (1) how the selected wiki could be blended with curriculum activities and existing technologies to complete collaborative tasks; (2) student and tutor expectations concerning collaborative learning and whether these expectations were met; (3) the barriers and enablers of using the wiki and perceptions of the task‐technology fit. Key findings included that tutors and students were able to use the wiki to complete tasks; tutors and students were positive about learning outcomes but collaboration was not as co‐constructive as hoped for; there were tensions between expectations of collaboration and assessment practices that affected how students collaborated; differences between participants in their group interaction, degree of co‐presence and familiarity with technology led to differences in perceptions of usefulness and actual wiki use; and version‐tracking data from the wiki proved unreliable on its own for gaining insights into actual collaborative processes. These findings suggest the importance of considering detailed local contexts of use when deciding to adopt new tools for supporting collaboration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it