1. Wiki Symposium First Experiences using WetPaint: Lessons Learned Dr Jo Hanisch School of Computer and Information Science Thursday 16 July 2009

2. Information Systems Project Management – 3 rd year level course Assignment 2 – worth 35% of the course –Involved planning for a systems development project –Deliverables: MS Project schedule and Report –Assignments were not assessed on the wiki Assignment was submitted via AssignIT Contribution via the wiki and individual peer review of each member (submitted via AssignIT) were used for moderation of final mark Decision to use wikis for collaborative work Formed groups of 4-5 students Students could nominate 1 other with whom they wanted to work Background

3. Groups were formed once the first assignment had been submitted – less likely that students would withdraw from the course and disrupt the group membership Dale Wache (LTU) presented information about using wikis to internal students. Instructions with screen shots were posted on course website Students were given the responsibility to establish the wiki for the group and invite the Course Coordinator to join. This had the 3 positive outcomes: 1) trusting the students to establish the wiki, 2) they had immediate ownership over the “look and feel” of the wiki, and 3) minimal work for the academic Getting Started

4. Based on recommendation from Tim Sawyer, WetPaint was chosen Advantages of WetPaint: Ability to have private wiki for each group – this was essential because the students were all completing the same project and would not be inclined to post information when other teams could view their work. No extra charge for private wiki Easy-to-use, although limited, editing Ability to block advertising Choosing Wiki

5. Peer Review Group Number: Student 1 nameStudent 2 nameStudent 3 name Did the group member contribute to discussions (online, wiki, email etc)? Did the group member produce all required preparation for the discussions? Did the group member contribute ideas? Did the group member assist in preparation of the project schedule? Did the group member assist in preparation of the project report? What is the number of hours spent on the assignment? What is the agreed percentage allocation for this assignment?

7. Internal students tended to meet face-to-face anyway Students started the assignment too late Some students really embraced using the wiki – others did not Students didn’t seem to collaborate very well. Anecdotal evidence suggests they divided tasks and then hoped it would all come together at the end – which in most cases it didn’t The groups that really discussed and worked on the tasks together performed much better – but was this due to, or enhanced by, using the wiki? Most groups didn’t make the most of the wiki’s functionality Outcomes

8. Further training for students to use wikis – possibly in a computing pool Further explanation concerning the rationale for using wikis in relation to the project and assessment Revise the assessment and show more clearly the link between the student’s contribution and their assignment mark; especially their contribution to wiki versus contribution to the project –This is needed to encourage the students to work as a group, rather than divide tasks between the group Allowing the students to establish the wiki worked well Need ways to encourage further collaboration – possibly assessment Improved editing capability is needed Lessons Learned