FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO.

495

Wading Through the World

of Wikis: An Analysis of
Three Wiki Projects
Lara C. Ducate
University of South Carolina, Columbia
Lara Lomicka Anderson
University of South Carolina, Columbia
Nina Moreno
University of South Carolina, Columbia
Abstract: With the increasing popularity of Web 2.0 tools, it only follows that these
technologies are adapted to our foreign language classroom practices. Research shows
their numerous advantages as participatory tools that foster communication and collaboration. This study focuses on one such tool, the wiki, and describes the implementation
of three different wiki projects (micropedia, branching story, and pre-reading) in three
university intermediate foreign language classes (French, Spanish, and German). The
objective is two-fold: to investigate (1) the type of collaboration that wikis foster, and
(2) students perceptions of this collaborative work. Results from a post-experimental
questionnaire point to the positive effect of wikis on students motivation to use the foreign language, while revealing varying degrees of satisfaction with collaborative work.
Key words: collaborative learning, group work, students perceptions of collaboration,
Web 2.0 tools, wikis
As Web 2.0 technologies, such as Twitter, podcasts, and wikis, gain more popularity in both the real world and the classroom, educators are beginning to embrace
the pedagogical benefits of these participatory technologies (Ajjan & Hartshorne,
2008, p. 71). While the Internet has long been used as a reference to provide information, Web 2.0 can foster critical thinking and creativity through collaboration
with other users (Maloney, 2007). Students are no longer passive learners but
instead are required to critically engage with new material through cooperation
with other learners (Thorne & Payne, 2005). Whether or not educators employ

Lara C. Ducate (PhD, University of Texas at Austin) is Associate Professor of German

at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Lara Lomicka Anderson (PhD, The Pennsylvania State University) is Associate
Professor of French at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Nina Moreno (PhD, Georgetown University) is Assistant Professor of Spanish at the
University of South Carolina, Columbia.

496

Web 2.0 in their classrooms seems to be

influenced by the ease of use of the technology, its usefulness, and whether administrators, colleagues, and students appreciate it
(Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008). So that faculty members embrace Web 2.0 technology,
Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) argued that
best practices models are needed to further facilitate the adoption of these emerging technologies as tools for improving
teaching and learning in higher education
(p. 79). With so many different Web 2.0
technologies from which to choose, including communicative (blogs and podcasts),
collaborative (wikis and virtual communities of practice), documentative (blogs and
e-portfolios), generative (virtual learning
worlds), and interactive (social bookmarking) tools (McGee & Diaz, 2007), this article explores best practices associated with
a collaborative Web 2.0 technology: wikis.
As research on wikis is in its early stages,
and considering the limited research on the
use of wikis in language learning, our study
seeks to heed Kesslers (2009) suggestion to
experiment and observe students work in
varied collaborative tasks with varied teacher
content and form-focused intervention
(p. 91). This project, framed as action
research, aims to examine students perspectives of three different wiki projects in order
to assess ways in which foreign language
instructors can best implement wikis into
their classes, the types of benefits to expect,
and how to deal with possible challenges.
We explain the steps involved in implementing three different wiki projects in French,
Spanish, and German intermediate language
classes to illustrate ways to integrate wikis
into the foreign language classroom. After
describing each of the projects, we present
the results of a post-semester survey to provide students perspectives on the effectiveness of the projects in regard to language
learning and collaborative work.

What Is a Wiki?
The term wiki originates from two possible sources. As an acronym, wiki stands for

FALL 2011

what I know is (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008),

and the term also means quick in Hawaiian
(Toker, Moseley, & Chow, 2008). In practice, a wiki is a Web site that can be edited
by anyone and therefore consists of the collective contributions of all the wiki users
(Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Godwin Jones,
2003). Chase (2007) compared a wiki to a
beehive because there is cooperation, division of labor, and reciprocity when several
users work together to create it (p. 8). Each
member shares ownership, the organization is transparent, and it effectively facilitates teamwork and sharing (pp. 5253).
Due to the high degree of collaboration in a
wiki, Lamb (2004) defined a wiki as being
ego-less, timeless, and never finished
(p. 38), with the structure and content of the
wiki decided by the users and consistently
updated and negotiated. Because information
on a wiki can be quickly constructed either
for the entire Web or a more private audience,
it represents a prime example of writing as
thinking and a place where such thought can
be revisited, reused, and repurposed (Bonk,
Lee, Kim, & Lin, 2009, p. 135).
As a wiki can be edited by anyone, one
cannot always be sure that the information
on a wiki is correct. However, there are
normally enough users of a wiki to insure
that if incorrect information is posted, it
will quickly be corrected by another user
(Wheeler, Yeomans, & Wheeler, 2008). In
addition, if something correct is deleted,
there is a history page where users can track
the changes made to the wiki and revert to a
previous version if necessary.

Wikis in Education
One of the greatest advantages of using
wikis in education is their inherent promotion of collaboration (Bonk et al., 2009;
Hazari, North, & Moreland, 2009; Neumann & Hood, 2009; Schroeder, 2009;
Tonkin, 2005), including such applications as housing electronic portfolios,
social networking, storing and organizing
information, or serving as a management
tool (Toker et al., 2008). There have been

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

numerous reports on how to use wikis for

such tasks as building reference lists or outlines, planning conferences, and teaching
writing skills (Lamb, 2004; Warlick, 2006).
Other studies illustrated their application to
prepare for comprehensive graduate exams
(e.g., DiPietro et al., 2010); create a class
textbook (Cronin, 2009); map, brainstorm,
and share ideas about specific class topics
(Dreon & Dietrich, 2009; Kessler, 2010; Kilham,
2009; Matthew, Felvegi, & Calloway, 2009;
Thompson et al., 2009); plan a project
(Hadley & Debalak, 2009; Heys, 2008); or
store lab/research notebooks (Neumann
& Hood, 2009). Writing students, in the
foreign or native language, can maintain
a portfolio of texts they have written on a
wiki and then reflect critically on their writing (Dymoke & Hughes, 2009; Farabaugh,
2007; Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008) or write
a wiki page together (Arnold, Ducate, &
Kost, 2009; Kessler, 2009; Lee, 2010).
When engaged in a collaborative writing project, students instantly become
both authors and the audience (Thorne &
Payne, 2005), which causes the blurring of
historical notions of authorship that emerge
as a function of collaborative writing in a
universal write-access wiki space (Sykes,
Oskoz, & Thorne, 2008, p. 531). Because
students shift from being information
consumer[s] to knowledge producers
(p. 539), they have more contributive and
co-constitutive roles in [the wiki] community (Sykes et al., 2008, p. 539). Collaboratively working on a writing project
also supports a process-oriented approach
to writing (Evans, n.d.; Guth, 2007) and
incremental knowledge creation (Toker
et al., 2008, p. 24), viewed as a more effective method of writing in second language
acquisition (Hewens, 1986; Scott & Rodgers, 1995; Suh, 2002). Students can serve as
writers as well as editors, providing themselves with a critical lens through which to
view their and their peers work and a sense
of greater responsibility and empowerment
toward their writing (Guth, 2007; Ruth &
Houghton, 2009). Assuming these different
roles also promotes autonomous learning

497

(Kessler, 2009), as students, acting as editors, employ critical thinking skills when
they evaluate the collaborative wiki page.
The learning process thereby becomes more
democratic, with all students becoming
empowered by the opportunity to collaborate, problem solve, and revise (Bonk et al.,
2009). Students are also exposed to multiple perspectives, which encourage deeper
reflection and understanding (Neumann &
Hood, 2009).
In addition to enhancing the writing
process, collaborative writing has been found
to lead to a better product. The complexity
of the writing (Sotillo, 2002) and grammatical accuracy (Guth, 2007; Storch, 2005) are
improved, and the information is more accurate and diverse (Sykes et al., 2008).
Collaboration is also recognized as a
key component of sociocultural learning
(Vygotsky, 1978) and is the foundation of
wikis (Morgan & Smith, 2008). Rather than
consuming static course materials individually, wiki users are able to build knowledge
collaboratively in the public space of the
shared wiki (Neumann & Hood, 2009). Students are capable of higher degrees of learning in a group than they would be alone due
to the peer-peer interactions and the group
construction of knowledge that takes place
during these interactions (Haythornthwaite,
2006). While one student might be an expert
in one aspect of the wiki, another is an expert
in another area, so all students have the
chance to develop their knowledge together
in a democratic manner (Ruth & Houghton,
2009). Socially, wiki users gain skills for
working in groups, realize what is involved
in managing group participants, and learn
how to work together to negotiate content
and meaning to reach a common goal within
the group (Haythornthwaite, 2006; Lund,
2008; Richardson, 2006; Schroeder, 2009).
Since the wiki is available on the
Internet, students instantly have a wider
audience than just their class (Ajjan &
Hartshorne, 2008; Mak & Coniam, 2008).
They can create the wiki for someone else,
which provides a greater purpose to the
writing assignment. For example, students

498

could organize a wiki in Spanish for Hispanic parents to provide regular updates of
what is happening at the school.
With this freedom to create, transform, and destroy, however, comes power
as well as responsibility (Thorne & Payne,
2005, p. 384). As with most types of collaborative tasks, social loafing can be a
problem if all students do not contribute
equally to the collaborative writing project (Wheeler et al., 2008, p. 990). With
wikis, however, it is easy to monitor each
participants contribution to the Web site.
The history page reveals what each user has
contributed to the wiki, maintains a record
of edits made to the page, and provides a
backup if anything is lost or erased.
In conclusion, wikis are user-friendly,
easily accessed, and low-cost (Zorko, 2009),
and when they are used in education they
can foster collaboration, coconstruction,
and democratic learning, with all participants taking the role of expert and novice
(Neumann & Hood, 2009). Keeping in
mind these benefits and a general overview
of how wikis can be used in education, we
now provide some representative examples
of student learning through wiki projects.

Student Learning Through Wikis

After conducting a survey on the prevalence
of Web 2.0 technologies in teaching, Ajjan
and Hartshorne (2008) found that 42% of
surveyed faculty from a large Southeastern university observed that wikis could
improve student learning, and 20% claimed
they could increase student-to-student
interactions (p. 77). The following section
demonstrates how wikis can aid in students
learning and student-to-student interactions
by examining several illustrative collaborative writing projects, including general uses
in education and foreign languagespecific
applications, and it is followed by a list of
tips for using wikis based on their findings.
Before beginning a wiki task, it is necessary to train students to take advantage of
the various tools in a wiki (Cronin, 2009;
Engstrom & Jewett, 2005; Wheeler et al.,

FALL 2011

2008). In a large project conducted at the

middle school level with 11 teachers and
400 middle schoolers, Engstrom and Jewett
(2005) noted that training participants to
use the wiki was one of the most important
components of the project and that both
teachers and students needed to be trained
in providing and responding to feedback.
Training also encourages students to make
use of the image and sound options on wikis
and makes students generally more comfortable using the wiki (Wheeler et al., 2008).
In addition to training, it is helpful to
provide students with an audience for their
wiki (Evans, n.d.; Mak & Coniam, 2008;
Wheeler et al., 2008). When students in a
primary school teacher training program
used wikis to store information, edit their
work from their research, and post to a
discussion forum, Wheeler et al. (2008)
found that students strived to be more
accurate because there was an audience for
their work. Evans (n.d.) noted the value
of an audience when his advanced French
students from Skidmore College produced
a wiki on Qubcois culture for future students. She also reported that the students
were more motivated toward the project
than if they were merely producing a site
for their classmates and that they wanted
to be sure to produce a useful and informative site for future French students.
While an audience can increase motivation toward the task, it has been shown
that the student-centered nature of wikis
also encourages participation (Evans,
n.d.; Lund, 2008; Matthew et al., 2009;
Schroeder, 2009; Wheeler et al., 2008;
Zorko, 2009). Evanss (n.d.) students
immersed themselves in the research for
their pages and devoted time to writing,
revising, and organizing their sites as well
as peer editing their classmates pages,
thereby insuring that they were active participants in each step of the learning process. In a language arts teaching methods
class, students reported that they found the
wiki useful, felt ownership over the wiki,
and could imagine using it during their
teaching career (Matthew et al., 2009).

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

Although it appears that wikis promote

student-centered learning and participation, not all students are open to the idea of
their peers editing their work (Guth, 2007;
Lee, 2010; Lin & Kelsey, 2009; Lund, 2008;
Schroeder, 2009; Wheeler et al., 2008). In
Lunds (2008) study on high school English as a second language (ESL) students
working together to define their view of the
United States, some students had trouble
understanding the collective ownership of
the page at the beginning of the task. They
eventually embraced the idea that the final
product was the sum of everyones individual contribution; however, they never
adjusted to the idea that someone could
change or delete their personal contribution (Lund, 2008). This sense of collective
ownership was easier for students to grasp
when adding to a public wiki (Guth, 2007).
Guth examined the difference between
students posting to a public wiki and contributing to their own semi-public wiki
and noticed that students engaged in more
true collaboration on the public wiki than
on the semi-private wiki. Similar to Lunds
(2008) and Wheeler et al.s (2008) students,
the participants in the semi-private wiki
had difficulty releasing ownership of the
pages or portions they contributed (Guth,
2007). Lin and Kelseys (2009) students
were also uncomfortable editing other students work and did not communicate effectively with their group members. After the
first wiki assignment failed, the instructor
gave the students more guidance on editing
and communication and the participants
became more engaged in the task and more
successful in their interactions. By the end
of the task, students felt more comfortable
editing each others work and commented
that the project helped them gain more
ideas and be more creative.
While students may not always enjoy
editing their peers contributions, revising classmates additions and working collaboratively on a wiki does engage them in
critical thinking skills and improves their
writing skills (Evans, n.d.; Matthew et al.,
2009; Neumann & Hood, 2009; Wheeler

499

et al., 2008; Zorko, 2009). Matthew et al.

(2009) noted that students in a teaching
methods class processed the information
more deeply and connected information
from other courses while developing their
wiki. In a comparison study in which five
classes wrote a report collaboratively on a
wiki and five classes wrote individually,
Neumann and Hood (2009) discovered that
the students in the wiki group were more
cognitively engaged than the students writing alone. Task design is also an important
element for promoting critical thinking and
collaboration (Zorko, 2009). The task must
be organized so that students are dependent
on each other for all aspects of the project.
In an English for Special Purposes Sociology class at the University of Ljubljana,
working in small groups to solve a real-life
problem encouraged students to embrace
the advantages of collaborative learning.
Students enjoyed reading their classmates
pages to make sure they were on the right
track and worked on all aspects of the project together (Zorko, 2009).
While the above examples focus on
wikis used in a variety of education contexts and subjects, the studies reviewed
below focus on wikis in foreign language
classes (Kessler, 2009; Lee, 2010; Mak &
Coniam, 2008). We provide more detail
for these studies as their findings, specific
to language learning, are more relevant to
the current study. In an ESL training program in Mexico City, 40 students were
assigned to collectively define the word
culture using a wiki (Kessler, 2009). The
researcher found that most students tended
to focus on content over accuracy on their
pages and that there was a high degree of
collaboration as evidenced by the peer editing. The students commented that if the
errors were not distracting to readers, they
did not see the importance in correcting
them, even though the instructions encouraged them to focus on both meaning and
form. Although the instructor might have
been disappointed that the students did not
focus on form, the students reported that
they especially enjoyed the wiki project

500

due to its lack of focus on form. The results

of this study differ from those of Arnold
et al. (2009), who found that their students
focused more on accuracy than content
when editing their wiki pages. Perhaps
the parameters of their task were more
accuracy-focused and therefore encouraged
the students to engage in more form-focused
corrections than meaning-based corrections. The results of a separate study on
Wikipedia, however, correspond to those
of Kessler (2009), where it was discovered
that changes made to Wikipedia entries
are also normally more macrostructural in
nature; users more often add content rather
than deleting what is there or engaging in
structural changes ( Jones, 2008).
In a project situated in an ESL class
in Hong Kong, 7th grade students were
divided into six groups to compile a wiki
about their daily lives to serve as a brochure
for their parents (Mak & Coniam, 2008).
In an educational situation where writing
is normally viewed as a product, the students were able to adjust to working collaboratively and ultimately produced more
ideas than they would have been able to do
alone. Similar to the results found by Kessler (2009), most of the changes made by
these ESL classmates were adding, expanding, and reorganizing ideas. Students were
less likely to correct mistakes because they
did not want their peers to lose face by having their errors exposed. Other than adding
content, the researcher noticed that students wrote more than what was required
and that their sentences were more complex
and creative than usual due to the collaborative nature of the task and the audience
(Mak & Coniam, 2008).
Students in an elementary Spanish
course reported that the wiki group project
was more motivating than working alone
and that they felt their writing was better.
They were assigned to replace four traditional essays with essays written collectively on a wiki and had four weeks to draft,
revise, edit, and publish their group essay
(Lee, 2010). As the semester progressed,
they engaged in more revisions, including

FALL 2011

linguistic scaffolding and content ideas.

Similar to other findings (Guth, 2007; Lin
& Kelsey, 2009; Lund, 2008; Schroeder,
2009; Wheeler et al., 2008), 40% of students
remained reluctant to edit their classmates
writing and preferred their instructors feedback over that of their peers (Lee, 2010).
The above wiki projects demonstrate
that wikis do in fact impel students to work
collaboratively by encouraging participants
to contribute their own ideas and edit their
peers content and form. While a number of
students are slow to accept the new paradigm of working together incrementally
to complete a final project together, others
enjoy having an audience for their work and
receiving feedback from their peers. Taking
on the role of both writer and reader also
encourages critical thinking among wiki
users as they learn to give and implement
feedback. With all the reported advantages
of using wikis in education, there are also
issues about which to be aware. The following list can serve as a reference for best practices based on previous research for using
wikis in the foreign language classroom:
Select a user-friendly wiki interface and
organize it so that students can easily
navigate the site (Zorko, 2009).
Train participants on the necessary technology and give them time to adjust to
using it (Bonk et al., 2009; Cole, 2009;
Cronin, 2009; Schroeder, 2009; Wheeler
et al., 2008; Zorko, 2009).
Design tasks to be demanding enough
so that they require collaboration, not
just cooperation. Students should not
be able to simply divide up the work
and assign each participant a different
part (Larussen & Alterman, 2009; Lund
& Rasmussen, 2008; Schroeder, 2009;
Wheeler et al., 2008).
Instruct students how to critically assess
their peers contributions, whether they
are peer editing or revising the collective
wiki (Cole, 2009; Guth, 2007).
Educate students on what it means to
work collaboratively to help them realize
that once they have posted to the wiki,

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

they no longer own their contribution.

This could take time as collaboration
often goes against the traditional notion
of education as an individual, even competitive, venture (Bonk et al., 2009; Lund
& Rasmussen, 2008; Ruth & Houghton,
2009; Wheeler et al., 2008).
Conduct a practice task at the beginning
of the project to help students build collaborative working approaches (Lin &
Kelsey, 2009).
Model communication strategies (perhaps starting with an ice-breaker or community building exercise) and then train
students on how to collaborate, manage,
and work with a group to help them
build a group identity. Students could
also be given roles to aid with collaboration (Godwin Jones, 2003; Haythornthwaite, 2006; Matthew et al., 2009;
Schroeder, 2009; Wheeler et al., 2008;
Zorko, 2009).
Provide students with regular feedback
so that they do not only rely on their
group members and so that they stay
motivated and encouraged (Bonk et al.,
2009; Cronin, 2009; Haythornthwaite,
2006; Lin & Kelsey, 2009; Zorko, 2009).
Describe assessment clearly and at the
onset of the project so that students
know if they are being assessed individually or as a group (Bonk et al., 2009;
Zorko, 2009).

Considering the various benefits and tips

discussed above in regard to this relatively
new educational tool, we describe three
different wiki projects and how they were
received by students in intermediate foreign
language classes to add to the growing body
of research on wikis in foreign language
education.

Design of the Wiki Project

The following section explains the pedagogical underpinnings of the wiki project,
outlines the project design, and describes
each project in more detail. The project
can be characterized as action research
in that it is conducted by and for instruc-

501

tors. Action research is most often smallscale, contextualized, localized attempts to

discover, develop, or monitor changes to
practice (Wallace, 2000). In using action
research to frame our study, we set out to
gather information about the way students
perceive their learning using wikis and
whether we, as foreign language instructors, consider the outcomes and gains rich
enough to continue using wikis as part of
our inventory of tasks. With these goals in
mind, the research questions guiding our
study included: (1) What are the students
perceptions of the use of the wikis? and
(2) Based on student perceptions, how did
wikis benefit students learning processes?
We address these questions at the end of the
article as we seek to gain insight and effect
positive change (Donato, 2003) for future
projects involving wikis.

Methodology
The study was conducted during the spring
semester of 2009 (French, German) and
the fall semester of 2009 (Spanish) in three
intermediate language courses at a large
Southeastern university. It was our goal to
investigate how students collaborated on
different types of wiki projects in the target
language to ascertain their perceptions of
the effects of wikis on the language learning
process.
Participants included 10 learners of
French, 10 learners of German, and 10
learners of Spanish (N 5 30) enrolled in
intermediate language classes. As part of
required class assignments, students were
asked to complete this collaborative wiki
with their peers, and all of the wikis were
located on the free tool, wikispaces.com.
Each language group participated in a different type of task (see next section for
detailed descriptions), and all students
received a one-hour training session in
preparation for the project.
At the end of the semester, students
responded to a written questionnaire where
they could express their opinions about the
project (see Appendix A). The instrument

502

FALL 2011

was designed to provide factual, behavioral,

and attitudinal information (Drnyei, 2003).
The researchers chose a questionnaire to distribute to all participants as it represents an
effective tool to gather data quickly at low
cost (Drnyei, 2003). The researchers gathered responses from participants to whom
they had access, thus making use of a sample
of convenience (McKay, 2006). We elicited
responses from 18 Likert-scale questions, 3
open-ended questions, and 7 background
questions. The next section provides details
on each language task and the design of the
language-specific wiki projects.

Tasks
Project A: Micropedia Project
A micropedia wiki is a small student-generated version of an encyclopedia. Fifthsemester French students supplemented a
book they read during the semester (Le Racisme Expliqu ma Fille; Jelloun, 1996) and
created a digital micropedia by compiling
text, images, sound, and videos on a wiki.
On the first day the project was introduced,
students received training in a computer
lab. They learned the basic operation of the
wiki, including formatting techniques and
how to embed video in a wiki page.

As students began their micropedia, they did so in phases over a 2-month

period. The book was divided into 12 sections for the micropedia and for each section, the instructor selected several key
itemsfor example, words, phrases, people, or eventsfor inclusion in the micropedia. Examples of items included racism,
protest, Jean-Marie Le Pen, skin color, and
xenophobia. Students worked in 4 groups of
2 to 3 students and annotated the key items
with text, images, sound, and video. For
each section of the book, students (1) provided definitions of key terms, (2) shared
personal stories that related to the section,
and (3) added a discussion question.
The researchers provided a model for
the content and distributed a grading rubric
prior to the start of the project (see Appendix B). Figure 1 displays a screen shot of the
student-generated definition of racism in the
micropedia.
After submitting their work for a particular section, students received feedback
from a native speaker of French, which was
primarily related to the appropriate use of
grammar and vocabulary. In addition, they
received advice from their peers on format
and layout (see Figures 2 and 3). They were
given one week to revise their work and

FIGURE 1

Screen Shot of French Wiki

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

503

FIGURE 2

Feedback From Native Speaker

make changes. The native speaker was a

French graduate teaching assistant specifically assigned to work with the students on
this project.
Figure 4 provides an example of the
revision process, which is available at any
time via the history page of the wiki tool.
It is evident that students sometimes cor-

rected items that they perceived to be incorrect that were in fact correct. The revision
process can help students revisit these
items, but because the native speaker did
not actually correct students grammar (she
only provided them with suggestions about
problems they encountered), some grammar issues remained.

FIGURE 3

Student Feedback

504

FALL 2011

FIGURE 4

Example of French History Page

Students completed the micropedia

project in just less than 8 weeks, including revisions. We discuss the results of the
post-semester questionnaire and students
perceptions of the project in the Results
section.
Project B: Branching Story
Following the format of a fairly popular series of childrens books in the 1980s
called Choose Your Own Adventure, the main
idea of this type of wiki is to create an interactive dynamic between the creators of the
story and its readers. In this wiki, the plot
lines in each story are not linear but rather
allow the inclusion of two or more internal
links at the bottom of each entry so that the
reader can make a selection and by doing
so can direct the course of the storys plot.
Figure 5 illustrates a sample page of the
wiki created by one of the groups. At the
bottom of the page, two hyperlinks were
added, each one taking the reader to a different new page and thus, a new twist in the
plot of the story.

Prior to the beginning of the project,

one of the researchers and the instructor of
the Spanish course discussed how an existing writing project could be adapted to the
wiki task. The original paper-and-pen task
consisted of having students form groups
to write a childrens book in Spanish. Being
enthusiastic about working with wikis in
her class, the instructor turned the traditional writing task into a wiki project with
the help of the researchers.
During the first session, the researcher
met the students in the language lab to
explain the objective of the project, form
groups of 45 students, and have participants brainstorm and exchange ideas on
what the main plot of their stories might
be. The researcher brought a shorter version of a branching story to introduce
learners to the concept and provided a
short tutorial on how to navigate the
wikispaces.com site and how to access
their assigned page on the wiki. By the
end of this session, all the participants had
signed up and become official participants
of the wiki.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

FIGURE 5

Screenshot of the First Page of a Branching Story

505

506

FALL 2011

FIGURE 6

Sample Blueprint of a Branching Story

In order to clarify how to split the main

plot into various subplots, the researcher
showed a blueprint to the learners during
the first session (see Figure 6). Each group
received hard copies of the blueprints so
that the task of dividing up the work among
members could begin in class and so that the
division of labor became visible and, therefore, equitable. Neither the instructor nor the
researcher interfered with how each group
divided the work during the next 2 weeks.
At the end of the 2 weeks, each group turned
in a paper draft of their unfinished stories to
the instructor only to keep the other groups
in suspense regarding their story lines. A
week later, they posted their final version to
the wiki. Although a wiki would naturally
gain its own audience with time, and given
the nature of a story-writing task, the participants in this class wanted to narrate the stories to a real audience shortly after they had
finished their wiki. Therefore, the following
week, the instructor organized a show-andtell session during which all groups showcased their end products, and to which the
researcher and another Spanish instructor
were invited to form part of an evaluation
panel. The panel filled out the evaluation
rubric to assess the task as a whole.
Three groups were formed. The title
of the first groups story (see Figure 5) was

Daniela y Marco (Daniela and Marco)

and told the story of two adventurous twins
on a sailing trip. The second group named
its story Yayo se pierde (Yayo Gets Lost),
about a little boy, Yayo, and his familys visit
to the State Fair. Yayo gets lost but luckily
receives help from all the animals at the fair.
The last group constructed a story called
Un explorador muy joven (A Very Young
Explorer), about a curious baby elephant
who dreams of traveling around the world.
In this particular project, the history
page of the wiki did not reflect how much
time or how many times each individual
participant collaborated with the groups
wiki, given that most groups seemed to
have designated someone as their leader
and site manager. Therefore, most entries
showed one or two of the members names
for each group (see Figure 7).
On the day of the formal presentation
of the groups wikis, the judges evaluated
the wikis with a rubric, which the instructor
developed and presented to the other two
panel members for feedback (see Appendix C for rubric). The rubric placed special
emphasis on the projects content and ideas
and its organization. In addition, the quality
of the groups oral presentation was taken
into account. Less weight out of the total
grade, although it was nonetheless still an

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

507

FIGURE 7

History Page of the Branching Story Wiki

important aspect of the project, was given

to their accuracy in grammar, the diversity
and display of expertise in working with
the wiki technology, and group work evidenced by the projects coherence and
overal cohesion.
Project C: Pre-Reading Project
For this final wiki project, the researchers adapted the pre-reading model for a
4th-semester intermediate German class.
For the purposes of the German project,
10 students were divided into 2 groups of
3 and one group of 4 to design their own
wiki page on wikispaces.com as part of a
wiki site devoted to historical and cultural
terms from the novel Am krzeren Ende der
Sonnenallee (Brussig, 1999). The instructor of the course set up the wiki site for the
text, and each group contributed their own

page on their chosen topic. The goal of the

task was for students to create a resource
for classmates to consult before and while
reading the text to ultimately improve their
comprehension of the text. Background
knowledge has been shown to be an integral component in reading comprehension
(Fecteau, 1999; Ketchum, 2006; Levine &
Haus, 1985). The instructor chose a list
of important cultural and historical events
from the text, and students divided into
groups according to which topic interested
them the most. Because students were planning to read the novel during the second
half of the semester, the first half of the
semester was devoted to preparing the wiki
page so that they would have it as a reference while they read the text. In order to
increase the number of topics that would
be researched, 3 groups of students in one
intermediate German class worked with 7

508

FALL 2011

groups of students from another university to provide a total of 10 topics and wiki
pages for 27 students (see Appendix D for a
list of topics). So that students could meet
face-to-face to discuss their project if necessary, students from the same universities
worked together.
This assignment was process-oriented
and included several steps for the development of the page. Students were required to
compile an annotated bibliography with at
least nine sources for their wiki page. Using
the annotated bibliography, they then drafted
an outline for their page. Next they wrote
the first draft of their page and were required
to include an introduction to the topic, a
brief history of the topic, an explanation of
its significance today and in the past, how
an 18- to 20-year-old may have viewed the
topic at the time, and the significance it has
today. After each component of the project,
students received feedback from both their
instructor, in the form of a grading rubric
(see Appendix B for a sample rubric), and
their peers (see Figure 8). For the second
draft, students were required to add at least
three pictures to their site and incorporate
the feedback from the first draft. After receiving feedback on the second draft, students
produced the final draft that would be used

by students from both universities as a reference while they read the novel (see Figure 9).
The project lasted 6 weeks, and students had
about 2 weeks between each draft. In order
to ensure that the students visited the wiki
page before beginning the novel, they were
required to complete a Webquest with specific questions about each page, and students
continued to consult the wiki while reading the novel either in class or alone. After
reading the novel, students viewed the film
Sonnenallee (Haussmann, 1999) so that they
could compare similarities and differences to
the novel.

Results and Analysis

This section presents the results obtained
from the questionnaire filled out by all
participants after the completion of their
respective wiki projects (see Appendix A).
The questionnaire was divided into a first
section containing Likert-scale format questions and a second part that presented openended questions, the purpose of which was
to add to the understanding of student perceptions of the wiki creation. We coded the
first part of the questionnaire quantitatively,
while we used the answers to questions
that tapped into students more subjective
reactions to the project to corroborate and

FIGURE 8

Examples of Peer Feedback

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

509

FIGURE 9

Example German Page

triangulate the information obtained in the

first part of the questionnaire.

Quantitative Data
For ease of reading, we have grouped the
18 items of the questionnaire according to
the type of information they elicited (see
Figures 1013). Figure 10 illustrates students general enthusiasm (or lack thereof)
toward working with a wiki, and how much
they considered what they had learned. For
both questions 1 and 2, the majority of students (55 and 72%, respectively) indicated
that they did enjoy the project and that they
learned something in the process, validating the wiki as an enjoyable learning tool.
To further analyze what students thought
they had learned, we direct our attention to
questions 3 and 7. While a similar number
of students chose Agree and Neutral
regarding whether they had learned about
the topic that their wiki covered (41 and
31%), more than two thirds (69%) claimed
to have used the linguistic structures they
learned in class in their wikis. It should

be noted, however, that in part, the results

obtained in question 3 may be skewed by
the neutral responses given by 60% of the
participants in the branching story wiki, in
which there was no real topic per se that the
groups covered.
Figure 11 shows students perceptions
of the quality of collaboration that took
place throughout the duration of the project. As can be seen from the table, answers
regarding collaboration were not always
consistent. While more than 60% agreed or
strongly agreed that collaboration went well
in their groups and that they were able to
contribute to the group, a little more than
one third did not express an opinion on
whether they would have preferred to work
alone. Approximately 21% expressed a preference for working alone, corroborating past
findings in the field (cf. Guth, 2007; Lund,
2008; Wheeler et al., 2008) that found that
students were reluctant to relinquish ownership of their work in the wiki.
When the groups were formed in each
wiki, the researchers or instructors did not
assign specific roles to the students. The

510

FALL 2011

FIGURE 10

Student Enthusiasm Toward Wiki

FIGURE 11

Students Perceptions of Collaboration

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

dynamics of each group developed on their

own. It is interesting to note that more than
60% of the participants reported that they
had a leader in their group. Perhaps part of
the groups success in this task may have
been a direct result of having someone to
manage progress, set deadlines, and act as
the liaison among all members of the group.
This was true for the German pre-reading
and the Spanish wikis more than for the
French wiki. Another factor that seems
important to highlight is contained in question 10, which touched on how participants
thought the rest of their team members
regarded their contributions. It is evident
from most participants responses that they
felt valued by their peers.
As is evident from Figure 12, students
responses in regard to their use of wikis as

511

a resource when reading the text in their

classes broke even. An equal amout of students agreed and disagreed. There was an
unequivocal consensus, however, regarding
how useful the wiki was to apply and use
the foreign language structures students
had learned in class, with more than 85%
of students either in strong agreement or
agreement with such a statement. About
two thirds of the participants agreed or
strongly agreed that all members of their
team were equally involved in the project.
Judging by the responses obtained for question 15, it seems that students involvement
in the project experienced variation. Finally,
participants appeared to have been assigned
one specific task within their groups, as
more than half of them claimed not to have
taken on a variety of contributions.

FIGURE 12

Students Use of Wikis as a Resource

512

FALL 2011

Figure 13 illustrates the responses

regarding feedback received and involvement in the project. Responses to questions
12 and 13 suggest that participants were
more responsive to the feedback received
from the instructor than to that given by their
peers. This may be due to the fact that students know that the instructor is ultimately
the one who assigns them a grade for the
project, but these results also coincide with
those found in Lee (2010), where students
preferred feedback from their instructor.
Regarding each individuals involvement in the project, there did not seem
to be a consensus: While most participants claimed that everyone was equally
involved in the project, change in participation according to the phase in the wiki
did not occur evenly; more than 30%
agreed that their involvement had changed,

while approximately the same percentage

remained neutral to that statement, and a
similar percentage held that their involvement had not changed throughout the
entire process. In fact, close to half of all
participants stated that the types of contributions they made to the project did not
vary, while approximately 30% thought that
their contributions had varied.

Qualitative Data
The questionnaire also included open-ended
items. Below is a summary of the responses
that were collected from the questions that
were common to all three wiki projects. As
with the first part of the questionnaire, all
questions used English and required students
to answer in English to present as accurate a
picture as possible of the experience.

FIGURE 13

Student Involvement in Project

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

One of the open-ended questions asked

what, in the respondents opinion, the factors were that contributed to the success or
failure of their group. The most frequent
factors listed were communication and
meeting time/place. While some participants praised their group on how well they
had managed to communicate and then
divide up the work by compromising and
picking up each others slack if someone
was not contributing as much as needed,
others thought that their group did not
communicate well enough outside of class
and that the only reason they succeeded
was because they had a leader who was in
charge of putting everyones work together.
When asked what problemsif any
they had encountered, most participants
in the branching story and the pre-reading
wikis mentioned the difficulty of arranging meeting times outside class time. Very
few listed technical difficulties as a problem, confirming the user-friendly quality of
wikis.
The last open-ended question shared
by all three wikis asked participants to
make comments on what they had liked or
disliked about the wiki projects. Most participants enjoyed working with technology
(I liked this project in that it was interesting to learn how to use a wiki. This project was just innovative and we learned a lot
of Spanish. I really liked finding the videos to put on the page.). In addition, many
felt they learned interesting facts about a
certain topic and about the target language
(The wiki really helped with learning new
vocabulary and learning about French culture, as we gained better understand[ing]
of the vocab[ulary] itself and its context
in French culture. I liked this project
because we were able to learn a lot about
some of the main themes in [G]ermany
during the Cold War.).
A few expressed frustration with the
technical part of the projects; another negative factor that participants mentioned was
the lack of time to work on the project,
especially given that most groups required
meeting outside of class time. This lack of

513

organization seemed to tie in with some

students concern that some group members contributed more than others; that is,
the social loafing phenomenon addressed
previously by Wheeler et al. (2008).

Pedagogical Implications
As Downes (2004) noted, the process of
reading online, engaging a community,
and reflecting on it online is a process of
bringing life into learning (p. 26). These
three wiki projects attempted to engage students in their learning while allowing them
to both reflect and collaborate online with
other classmates. As indicated in the results
section above, students did enjoy working
with this collaborative tool and felt that
they were engaged in the learning process.
Keeping that in mind and based on our own
experiences, we offer several ideas and suggestions for wiki projects.
One crucial element to creating a successful wiki results from deliberate and
consistent training with students. As several researchers (Cole, 2009; Cronin, 2009;
Engstrom & Jewett, 2005; Wheeler et al.,
2008; Zorko, 2009) have recommended, it
is essential to provide training on the technological tool that is being used. Hands-on
training where students work on computers, do practice exercises similar to what
they are expected to complete, and have
time to ask questions is strongly encouraged. Although training was a built-in component to these projects, technical issues
still arose. In-class demonstrations and
printed directions were provided on the
topics; however, some students were still
not successful at embedding video, inserting anchors, or formatting text in certain
ways. The instructor or other students continuously provided assistance with difficult
technical issues.
Another element that is essential to the
success of such projects is careful consideration as to how a wiki project is integrated
into the context of the class. Instead of functioning as an add-on, consistent integration
could be helpful and make the task more

514

meaningful. Working with an audience for

the project also gives authenticity to the
learning (Evans, n.d.; Wheeler et al., 2008).
For the German project, students worked
with another German class in a different
state. For Spanish, students were motivated
by the fact that their project was actually a
contest to develop the best childrens story,
which they presented in front of a panel
of three instructor judges. For French and
Spanish, the audience consisted of students
in the same class and the respective instructors. Perhaps future projects could attempt to
connect students who are geographically far
from each other (Bonk et al., 2009; Wheeler
et al., 2008) or involve native speakers in
more authentic ways (other than providing
feedback). In addition, Cole (2009) suggested that students are more inclined and
motivated to use technology when they perceive it as fun. That said, having partners or
others outside of the classroom as collaborators or readers could be genuinely motivating and even fun for students.
An avenue of exploration that may
be useful when considering a specific
focus or design for a project is that of peer
review. Given that the peer editing process
is beneficial to students (see Berg, 1999,
for example), it seems highly desirable to
incorporate peer review activities early in
this type of project to more fully exploit
the dynamic and collaborative nature of
the wiki. While students in our projects did
ultimately favor the instructors feedback
more so than that of other students, future
projects may change the way in which we
incorporated peer review. As has been found
in previous studies, students are resistant to
editing classmates additions (Guth, 2007;
Lee, 2010; Lin & Kelsey, 2009; Lund, 2008;
Schroeder, 2009, Wheeler et al., 2008) and
therefore need specific training and practice
on how to edit and be open to revisions from
classmates. As we redesign our specific wiki
projects, we could perhaps incorporate peer
review earlier, more deliberately, and with
clearer instructions as well as explanations
of its usefulness and benefits in language
learning.

FALL 2011

Finally, we were surprised that almost

a fourth of the students in our study preferred to work alone, rather than collaborate with others. In future wiki projects,
we could work more with students on the
process of collaboration. Haythornthwaite
(2006), for example, shared some ideas
on using wikis based on her own experiences. She indicated that more successful
wiki projects include allowing for extra
time for both in-class and online collaboration. Students should also be aware of
how online and offline work and learning
differ. Working directly with students on
the collaboration processhow to collaborate, expectations for collaboration, getting
to know other classmates, assigning roles,
establishing common goals and practices
could facilitate more collaboration and help
students appreciate its benefits. Instructors may also consider teaching collaborative online skills as part of the practice of
being an online student: e.g., the use of
conventions such as message subject headings, proper message thread use in bulletin
boards, and topic management. Finally, it
may be necessary to emphasize collaboration over competition so that everyone
is equally encouraged to contribute and
share thoughts and resources (Guth, 2007;
Wheeler et al., 2008).
Another limitation of these projects was
that our specific tasks were perhaps at times
too structured (French, German), leaving
the students with little room for creativity.
Or, in the case of Spanish, students may not
have been given enough time to write more
than one draft of their stories before they
had to upload them to the wiki site. Keeping all this in mind, Lamb (2004) pointed
out that it is necessary for the instructor to
relinquish a certain amount of power and
allow students to control aspects of a wiki.
In exploring other avenues for further
research, Figure 14 suggests that wikis can
offer a closer look at the editing process.
The history function of the wiki illustrates
exactly what changes were made by the editors and can be used to help in the grading process. From both a pedagogical and

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

515

FIGURE 14

History Page From German Wiki

research standpoint, these types of data can

provide information to both instructors and
learners with regard to the intricacies of
peer review and editing. Research involving
wikis and revision (see, for example, Arnold
et al., 2009; Kessler, 2009) has just begun
to scratch the surface. As illustrated by our
study and the many described above, wikis
offer an attractive tool for online collaboration. Future studies could more closely
examine the collaboration process at different levels and with different tasks.

Conclusion
The qualitative and quantitative data in this
wiki study suggest that students viewed the
wiki as a valid learning tool and found the
wiki environment to be enjoyable (see also
Lee, 2010). In other words, in answering
our first research question regarding the
students perceptions of the use of the wikis,
our results show that these were mostly
positive. Participants enjoyed working with
wikis and thought the project was a valuable tool. Their only negative perception
regarding wikis involved work distribution and time managementtwo difficulties that are not so much a problem of the

wikis themselves but that address the issue

of how carefully the instructor should plan
the preparatory stages of a wiki project.
The second research question asked
how, in the students perception, the wikis
helped in their learning process. According
to our results, students perceived gains in
grammar, vocabulary, and cultural content
as a result of the wiki projects because they
were able to use the learned linguistic and
cultural items seen in class. This particular
study did not seek to find what linguistic
items were more greatly benefited by the
use of wikis, but this is something that
could be investigated in future research.
Students generally agreed that collaboration did happen in most groups;
however, some students still had a strong
desire to work alone. They believed that
they contributed to successful wikis and
that they had fruitful learning experiences with their projects (see also Arnold
et al., 2009; Lee, 2010; Mak & Coniam,
2008). In sum, as an action research study,
these projects provide ample information
on the use and implementation of wikis
in a foreign language classroom: While
for our particular classes wikis seemed to

516

successfully reinforce linguistic and cultural items, using wikis also raised some
important issues regarding the distribution of tasks within groups. Until students
become accustomed to working collaboratively, a more detailed organization
plan could be devised by the instructors,
in which instructors assign different but
equally demanding roles to the students,
and students should be trained on how to
communicate effectively with their group
members. This would perhaps change students perceptions that only a few contributed most of the work.
It is important to keep in mind that
research involving wikis and language learning is still developing. We encourage educators, in whatever type of wiki project they
pursue, to carefully consider the literature/
research, most of which is just beginning
to emerge, in order to make informed decisions when designing wiki tasks, when training students on how to use wikis, and when
designing the intricacies of a particular wiki
project. As projects continue to evolve and
research continues to shed light on specific
ways that wikis can benefit language development, perhaps we can make bigger steps
in using wikis to enable educators to [bring]
life into learning (Downes, 2004, p. 26).

References
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0
technologies: Theory and empirical tests.
Internet and Higher Education, 11, 7180.
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2009).
Collaborative writing in wikis: Insights from
culture projects in German classes. In L.
Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration
in foreign language learning (pp. 115144).
San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language
Instruction Consortium.
Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer
response on ESL students. Revision types and
writing quality. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 8, 215241.
Bonk, C., Lee, M., Kim, N., & Lin, M. (2009).
The tensions of transformation in three cross-

FALL 2011

institutional wikibook projects. Internet and

Higher Education, 12, 126135.
Brussig, T. (1999). Am krzeren ende der Sonnenallee. Stuttgart, Germany: Klett-Cotta.
Chase, D. (2007). Transformative sharing
with instant messaging, wikis, interactive
maps, and Flickr. Computers in Libraries, 27,
78, 5254, 56.
Cole, M. (2009). Using wiki technology to
support student engagement: Lessons from the
trenches. Computers & Education, 52, 141146.
Cronin, J. (2009). Upgrading to 2.0: An experiential project to build a marketing wiki.
Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 6675.
DiPietro, J., Drexler, W., Kennedy, K.,
Buraphadeja, V., Liu, F., & Dawson, K. (2010).
Using wikis to collaboratively prepare for
qualifying examinations: An example of
implementation in an advanced graduate program. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 54, 2532.
Donato, R. (2003). Action research. (ERIC
Digest No. EDO-FL-03-08). Retrieved March
22, 2010, from http://www.cal.org
Drnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and
processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Downes, S. (2004). Educational blogging. Educause Review, 39, 1426. Retrieved March 15,
2009, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library
Dreon, O., & Dietrich, N. I. (2009). Turning lemons into lemonade: Teaching assistive technology through wikis and embedded
video. Tech Trends, 53, 7880.
Dymoke, S., & Hughes, J. (2009). Using a
poetry wiki: How can the medium support
pre-service teachers of English in their professional learning about writing poetry and
teaching poetry writing in a digital age?
English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8,
91106.
Engstrom, M., & Jewett, D. (2005). Collaborative learning the wiki way. Tech Trends, 49,
1215, 68.
Evans, C. A. (n.d.). Exploring wiki-based
project learning in foreign cultures and literatures. Retrieved July 26, 2008, from http://
rinconcito.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/
Wiki+project.doc
Farabaugh, R. (2007). The isle is full of
noises: Using wiki software to establish a
discourse community in a Shakespeare classroom. Language Awareness, 16, 4156.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

Fecteau, M. I. (1999). First- and secondlanguage reading comprehension of literary

texts. Modern Language Journal, 83, 475493.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies: Blogs and wikis: Environments for
online collaboration. Language Learning &
Technology, 7, 1216.
Guth, S. (2007, October). Wikis in education: Is public better? Paper presented at the
WikiSym07, Montral, Qubec, Canada.
Hadley, K.,& Debelak, K. (2009). Wiki technology as a design tool for a capstone design
course. Chemical Engineering Education, 43,
194200.
Haussmann, L. (Director). (1999). Sonnenallee [Motion picture]. Germany: Boje Buck
Produktion.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2006). Facilitating
collaboration in online learning. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10, 124.
Retrieved May 17, 2007, from http://www.
sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v10n1/pdf/
v10n1_2haythornthwaite.pdf
Hazari, S., North, A., & Moreland, D. (2009).
Investigating pedagogical value of wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 187198.
Hewens, C. (1986). Writing in a foreign language: Motivation and the process approach.
Foreign Language Annals, 19, 219223.
Heys, J. (2008). Group projects in chemical
engineering using a wiki. Chemical Engineering Education, 42, 9195.
Jelloun, B. (1996). Le racisme expliqu ma
fille. Paris: Editions du seuil.
Jones, J. (2008). Patterns of revision in online
writing: A study of Wikipedias featured articles. Written Communication, 25, 262289.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention
to form in wiki-based collaborative writing.
Language Learning and Technology, 13, 7995.
Kessler, G. (2010). Developing collaborative
autonomous learning abilities in computermediated language learning: Attention to
meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 4158.

517

disorders. Australian Journal of Special Education, 33, 117129.

Lamb, B. (2004). Wide open spaces: Wiki,
ready or not. Educause Review, 39, 3648.
Larussen, J., & Alterman, R. (2009). Wikis to
support the collaborative part of collaborative learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 371402.
Lee, L. (2010). Wiki-mediated collaborative
writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27, 260276.
Levine, M. G., & Haus, G. J. (1985). The
effect of background knowledge on the reading comprehension of second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 391397.
Lin, H., & Kelsey, K. (2009). Building a networked environment in wikis: The evolving
phases of collaborative learning in a wikibook
project. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 40, 145169.
Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach
to language production. ReCALL, 20, 3554.
Lund, A., & Rasmussen, I. (2008). The right
tool for the wrong task? Match and mismatch
between first and second stimulus in double
stimulation. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 387412.
Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis
to enhance and develop writing skills among
secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36, 437455.
Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach
us about learning. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 53, B26.
Matthew, K., Felvegi, E., & Calloway, R.
(2009). Wiki as a collaborative learning tool
in a language arts methods class. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 42, 5172.
McKay, S. (2006). Researching second language
classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McGee, P., & Diaz, V. (2007). Wikis and
podcasts and blogs! Oh, my! What is a faculty member supposed to do? Educause, 42,
2830, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40.
Morgan, B., & Smith, R. (2008). A wiki for
classroom writing. Reading Teacher, 62, 8082.

Ketchum, E. (2006). The cultural baggage

of second language reading: An approach to
understanding the practices and perspectives
of a nonnative product. Foreign Language
Annals, 39, 2242.

Neumann, D., & Hood, M. (2009). The effects

of using a wiki on student engagement and
learning of report writing skills in a university
statistics course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 382398.

Kilham, C. (2009). Online wiki collaboration

by teachers of students with autism spectrum

Richardson, W. (2006). The social web. Technology & Learning, 26, 30, 32.

518

Ruth, A., & Houghton, L. (2009). The wiki

way of learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 135152.
Schroeder, B. (2009). Within the wiki: Best practices for educators. AACE Journal, 17, 181197.
Scott, R., & Rodgers, B. (1995). Changing
teachers conceptions of teaching writing: A
collaborative study. Foreign Language Annals,
28, 234246.
Sotillo, S. (2002). Constructivist and collaborative learning in a wireless environment.
TESOL Journal, 11, 1620.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students reflections. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 14, 153173.
Suh, J.-S. (2002). Effectiveness of CALL writing
instruction: The voices of Korean EFL learners.
Foreign Language Annals, 35, 669679.
Sykes, J., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. (2008).
Web 2.0, Synthetic immersive environments,
and mobile resources for language education.
CALICO Journal, 25, 528546.
Thompson, J. Hess, G., Bowman, T., Magnusdottir, H., Stubbs-Gipson, C., Groom, M., et al.
(2009). Collaborative graduate education across
multiple campuses. Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education, 38, 1626.
Thorne, S., & Payne, S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22, 371397.
Thorne, S., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). Bridging activities, New media literacies, and

FALL 2011

advanced foreign language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 25, 558572.

Toker, S., Moseley, J., & Chow, A. (2008). Is
there a wiki in your future? Applications for
education, instructional design, and general
use. Educational Technology Magazine: The
Magazine for Managers of Change in Education,
48, 2227.
Tonkin, E. (2005). Making the case for a
wiki. Ariadne, 42. Retrieved February 19,
2009, from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue42/
tonkin/intro.html
Wallace, M. J. (2000). Action research for
language teachers. Beijing: Foreign Language
Teaching and Research Press.
Warlick, D. (2006). A day in the life of Web
2.0. Technology & Learning, 27, 2026.
Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D.
(2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39, 987995.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zorko, V. (2009). Factors affecting the way
students collaborate in a wiki for English language learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 645665.
Submitted July 14, 2009
Accepted February 18, 2011

APPENDIX A

End of Project Online Questionnaire

Please circle the answer that best fits your opinion about the wiki project this semester.
1. I enjoyed the wiki project this semester.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
2. The wiki project was a learning experience.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
3. I learned a lot about the topic(s) my group was responsible for.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

519

4. I used our wiki as a resource when I was reading our text.

strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
5. My groupmates and I collaborated well together.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
6. I would have preferred to work alone.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
7. I was able to use the target language and what was covered in class (grammar, vocabulary, cultural content) in this wiki project.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
8. I consulted/checked with resources other than our class textbook to figure out languagespecific questions (grammar, vocabulary, cultural content) that I had during this wiki project.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
9. I was able to make important contributions to shape our wiki page.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
10. I do not think my teammates valued my contributions.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
11. One of the students in my group [that can include you] took over a leadership role.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
12. Students from other groups provided valuable comments on our drafts or during revision stages.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
13. Native speakers or the instructor provided valuable comments on our drafts or during
revision stages.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
14. Everybody in my group was equally involved in the process and in the creation of wiki content.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
15. My degree of involvement changed during the different phases of the project (e.g.,
outlining the page vs. first or second draft).
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________

520

FALL 2011

16. My types of contributions did not vary during the different phases of the project.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
17. My group used the discussion page to communicate about our page or to interact/
discuss content.
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
18. My group was successful in creating (an) informative Web page(s).
strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree
Comments: _____________________________________________________________
19. Which factors contributed to the degree of success (or lack of) of your group?
20. Did your wiki group encounter any problems during the semester? Please comment on
them and how these problems were resolved.
21. Please add any additional comments and or suggestions if we were to implement the
project again (e.g., what you enjoyed most about the project, least, challenges, etc.).

Background Information
1. Todays date:
2. What class did you complete the wiki project in?
3. In which wiki project did you participate?
(1) Micropedia
(French)

(2) Branching Story

(German)

(3) Choose your own ending

(Spanish)

4. Approximately how many times have you posted to the wiki discussion board?
(1) 05

(2) 58

(3) 812

(4) More than 12

5. Approximately how many times have you made comments to other wiki discussion
boards?
(1) 0

(2) 14

(3) 58

(4) more than 8

6. Please check all the categories that apply to you:

a) Age: (1) 17 or younger (2) 1821 (3) 2225
(4) 2630
(5) over 30
b) Gender:
(1) Male
(2) Female
c) Race/ethnic group:  (1) White
(2) African American (3) Hispanic

(4) Asian
(5) Native American
(6) Biracial
7. Before this class
a) had you contributed to a wiki before?
b) had you participated in an online discussion or chat before?
c) had you designed a Web site before?
d) had you worked on a collaborative writing project before?
e) had you participated in peer review before?

(1) yes
(1) yes
(1) yes
(1) yes
(1) yes

(2) no
(2) no
(2) no
(2) no
(2) no

Enhancements:
Images, Sound,
Videos, and
Links

Punctuation,
Spelling, and
Presentation

Vocabulary and
Idioms

Grammatical
Accuracy

Content and
Consideration
of Reader

47

34
Includes some enhancements.
Enhancements do not add a lot
to content.

56
Includes a variety of
appropriate enhancements.

56
Occasional mechanical errors.

34
Often uses inappropriate or
nonspecific vocabulary (e.g.,
overuse of certain vocabulary
words in place of specific terms);
lack of variety in word choice.
Too many unknown words.
34
Frequent mechanical errors.

56
Usually uses appropriate
vocabulary with some variety;
some errors in usage that do not
affect the message. A few too
many unknown words.

Errors frequently affect

comprehensibility. Some errors
in grammatical structures, even
regarding simple structures.

78
Uses sufficient,
appropriate, and varied
vocabulary; English
influence not apparent.
No overuse of vocabulary
specific to topic.
78
Correct spelling (including
accents) and punctuation;
neatly typed with correct
format as specified.
78
Includes an excellent
variety of appropriate
enhancements.

811

Confined to simpler sentences

or structures with some errors.
Several errors in regard to
agreement.

1215

Conventional ideas or clichs;

little supporting detail included.
Consideration of reader rarely
apparent.

59

Appropriate level of
complexity in syntax
with very few errors. Very
few errors in regard to
agreement.

Some interesting content;

points not sustained or not
fully developed. Consideration
of potential reader not always
apparent.

1014

Interesting content and

presentation; ideas well
conceived and developed
with sufficient examples.
Consideration of potential
reader readily apparent.

1520

Wiki Project Rubric for French and German

APPENDIX B

12
Includes few or very little
enhancements.

12
English spelling and punctuation;
no accents; mechanical errors in
most sentences.

Message is largely
incomprehensible due to
inaccurate grammar, which alters
or obscures it, and/or reader must
know English to comprehend
much of the message.
12
Uses only elementary vocabulary;
creates nonexistent words from
English and/or uses words in
English.

14

Cursory; gives the impression

of writing just to complete the
assignment. Consideration of
reader not apparent.

14

Comments

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

521

78
Group functioned as team.
All members contributed
equally and worked
together successfully to
create excellent sections.

78
All members provided
feedback to other groups.
Feedback is relevant and
helpful. All members
contributed to revisions.

Content and
Ideas

___/75

Comments

The story is not age-appropriate

for the target audience.
The characters are not well
developed. The surroundings are
not well described. The story line
is complicated with dissatisfying,
melodramatic conclusions.
The story is not engaging. The
moral(s) of the story is (are) not
stated, and/or not appropriate for
the target audience.

12
Group rarely functioned as team.
Members did not contribute
equally and did not work
together successfully.

12
Feedback to other groups was
not consistent. Revisions were
not made or were left to one
group member.

The story is somewhat above/

below the age level for the
target audience. The characters
are somewhat developed. The
surroundings are somewhat
described. The story line is
somewhat complicated, some
evidence of melodramatic
conclusions. The story is relatively
engaging. The moral(s) of the
story is (are) are relatively clearly
stated and somewhat appropriate
for the target audience.

34
Group sometimes functioned as
team. Most members contributed
equally and worked together but
not always with success.

34
Most members provided
feedback to other groups but
feedback was not always helpful.
Most members contributed to
revisions.

The story is somewhat ageappropriate for the target

audience. The characters are
well developed for the most
part. The surroundings are
well described for the most
part. The story line is mostly
uncomplicated with satisfying,
unmelodramatic conclusions.
The story is engaging for the
most part. The moral(s) of
the story is (are) clearly stated
and mostly appropriate for the
target audience.

56
Members provided feedback
to other groups consistently.
Occasionally a member forgot to
provide feedback. Feedback was
usually helpful. All members
contributed to revisions.
56
Group functioned as team.
Members contributed equally
most of the time and worked
together successfully.

The story is completely ageappropriate for the target

audience. The characters
are well developed. The
surroundings are well
described. The story line
is uncomplicated with
satisfying, unmelodramatic
conclusions. The story is
engaging. The moral(s) of
the story is (are) clearly
stated and appropriate for
the target audience.

Grading Rubric for Spanish

APPENDIX C

Total

Team Effort

Feedback and
Revisions

APPENDIX B. (Continued).

522
FALL 2011

Content is well organized,

using headings or bulleted
lists to group related
material. There is a clear
and logical sequence to the
information.

The presentation is
interesting and well done.
Student is completely
prepared and has obviously
rehearsed. Student
consistently uses gestures,
eye contact, voice, and
enthusiasm to keep the
audiences attention.
Spanish pronunciation is
accurate, fluid, and easily
understood by a native
speaker of Spanish.

Organization

Oral
Presentation
The presentation is
relatively interesting and of
adequate quality. Student
seems pretty prepared but
might have needed a few
more rehearsals. Student
usually gestures, and uses
eye contact, voice, and
enthusiasm to keep the
audiences attention. Spanish
pronunciation has few errors,
with few pauses and breaks,
and can be understood by a
sympathetic native speaker
of Spanish.

The major part of the

content is organized using
headings or bulleted lists to
group related material. There
is a logical sequence to the
information.
The presentation has some
problems, but it maintains the
interest of the audience. The
student is somewhat prepared,
but it is clear that rehearsal was
inadequate. Student sometimes
uses gestures, eye contact, voice,
and/or enthusiasm to keep the
audiences attention. Spanish
pronunciation has some errors,
with some pauses and breaks.
Most of the presentation can be
understood by a sympathetic
native speaker of Spanish.

Content is somewhat organized

using some headings or bulleted
lists to group related material.
There is a mostly logical
sequence to the information, but
some details may not be placed
appropriately.

Presentation is weak and

does not keep the audiences
attention. Student does not
seem at all prepared to present.
Student does not keep the
audiences attention. Spanish
pronunciation has many errors.
Errors impede communication
so that the listener has trouble
understanding at times. Pauses
and breaks detract from the
fluidity of the presentation.

Details may be included, but

content is disorganized and
details may be unrelated to
each other. The sequence of the
information is not logical and
causes confusion.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS VOL. 44, NO. 3

523

524

APPENDIX D

German Topics for Wiki Project C

Potsdam Conference
Border between East and West Germany
Forbidden songs, movies, etc.
Free German Youth
Iron Curtain
East German Secret Police (Stasi)
Socialist Party of East Germany
East German Coming-of-Age Celebration (Jugendweihe)
Existentialism
Religion in East Germany

FALL 2011