1. Collaborative writing using Wiki: Students’ perspectives
Joseph Ramanair
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Souba Rethinasamy
Dr. Jecky Misieng
Centre for Language Studies,
University Malaysia Sarawak.
Kota Samarahan, Sarawak. Malaysia

2. Background
Research aim
Methodology
Findings
Discussion
Q & A

3. Background Web 2.0 tools Blogs Wikis social networking For teachers:
new strategies to engage with their students
For students:
to connect with one another (and teachers)
*enhance participation beyond the confines of the classroom.

4. “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much” – Helen Keller
Collaboration
Development of interpersonal and communication skills (Hassanien, 2007; Kapp, 2009)
Enhancement of thinking skills (Mills, 2003; Shehadeh, 2011)
Increase understanding of the learning task (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009).

5. Collaborative writing activities
“Everyone you will ever meet knows something you don't”
Collaborative writing activities
Encouraged articulation and collation of ideas for joint production of text (Elola & Ozkoz, 2010; Storch, 2013).
Writing texts produced - shorter but better in terms of task fulfilment, grammar accuracy, and complexity. (Shehadeh, 2011; Storch, 2; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009).
Writing texts that were linguistically more accurate, able to solve more problems related to EFL; enhanced construction of new knowledge (Dobao, 2012).

6. for academic and professional writing – focussed grammatical accuracy and structural coherence, and considered audience; high use of engagement marks in argumentative texts; reflected writer-reader interaction(Kuteeva, 2011).
facilitated use of collaborative strategies during revision stages and cooperative strategies during content changes (Arnold, Ducate, & Kost, 2012).
for writing reports in academic writing – positive and encouraging for language learning - “encouraged autonomy, increased their confidence, and created a great sense of achievement and belonging” (Papadima-Sophocleous & Yerou, 2013, p. 43).

7. Research aim
Students’ perspectives of using Wiki to collaborate as a group to construct their ideas to develop their academic writing by exploring their experiences with the technology…

8. Methodology Course description:
Academic Reading and Writing (undergraduate)
Course aims: developing students’ ability in reading and writing for academic purposes - skim and scan texts for information, read texts in the relevant to their fields of study, identify the organisational structure of different texts, identify and infer main and supporting ideas, select, cite, list references using the APA format, and write academic texts in three genres - information, explanation, and discussion (Centre for Language Studies, 2012).
Course delivery: Two-hour mass lecture every week + small group consultations for the writing tasks and assignments. Online support provided through the use of institutional LMS i.e. Morpheus (Moodle)

9. Validated to ensure scale reliability and construct validity
Instrument
Questionnaire - adapted and modified from Hazari, North, and Moreland (2009) + Open ended questions
Validated to ensure scale reliability and construct validity
The final model
Scale Reliabilities for each Factor
Factor
No Items
Alpha Value
Interaction 7
0.927
User-friendliness 4
0.853
Usage 5
0.915
Satisfaction
0.897

10. Questionnaire was provided online on Morpheus
Frequency
Percent
Gender
Male 43
86.0
Female 7
14.0
Year of Study
Year 1 Sem 1 11
22.0
Year 1 Sem 2 1
52.0
Year 2 Sem 1 14
28.0
Year 2 Sem 2 4
8.0
Year 3 Sem 1 17
34.0
Year 4 Sem 1 3
6.0
Department/College
Applied and Creative Arts
2.0
Computer Science & IT
Economics & Business 13
26.0
Engineering 8
16.0
Resource Science & Technology 21
42.0
Social Sciences
50 undergraduate students responded to the questionnaire from various disciplines.
Questionnaire was provided online on Morpheus
Students planned Explanation genre on Wiki (Morpheus) (an option)

11. Findings
D - Disagree
US - Unsure
A - Agree

12. D - Disagree
US - Unsure
A - Agree

13. D - Disagree
US - Unsure
A - Agree

14. D - Disagree
US - Unsure
A - Agree

15. D - Disagree
US - Unsure
A - Agree

16. I can interact more with my group members
I can interact more with my group members. I can read what my teammate have write [sic] and I can edit it. I also could add some information at [sic] my friends writing and vice versa.
Instructor respond on [sic] our draft really fast and we can do correction immediately its feature of 'live conference' editing using the same medium that is accessible anytime, anywhere.. :)
since it is based on online application we need to connect to internet when using it and sometimes I have a difficulties to find a [sic] internet connection in campus. So, it will cause a [sic] delay in my work.
the internet connection at my college is sometimes too slow made me could not access [sic] the Morpheus. so I can’t access the wiki easily because internet problem, slow internet line …

17. BUT…. Discussion Use of the Wiki….
supported students to interact across space and time
enabled students to share ideas
encouraged interest in the course
facilitated students to retain what has been learned
Was worth the time and effort
BUT….

18. Main challenge: Connectivity
When students and their instructors enter a classroom at the assigned hour, they have every reason to expect that instruction and learning will take place. Classroom-based instruction is a very reliable delivery system. That expectation extends to the online learning environment as well, and when a student or teacher logs in to a course
Website they expect to be able to engage the content and resources as needed.(Moskal, Dziuban, & Hartman, 2013)

19. References
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2012). Collaboration or cooperation? Analyz­ing group dynamics and revision processes in wikis. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 431–448.
Elola, I. & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71.
Dobao, A.F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21,
Hassanien, A. (2007). A qualitative student evaluation of group learning in higher education. Higher Education in Europe, 32(2),
Hazari, S., North, A., & Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating pedagogical value of wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 187–198.

20. Kapp, E. (2009). Improving student teamwork in a collaborative project-based course. College Teaching, 57(3),
Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer-reader relationship.English for Specific Purposes, 30(1), 44–57.
Mills, P. (2003). Group project work with undergraduate veterinary science students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(5),
Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15–23.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20,
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol, UK. Multilingual Matters
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects of fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3),