Recommendedcitation
Meseguer-Artola, A. (2014). LearningbycomparingwithWikipedia:thevaluetostudents’learning. RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 11(2). pp. 55-65. doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v11i2.2042
Abstract
ThemainpurposeofthisresearchworkistodescribeandevaluatealearningtechniquethatactivelyusesWikipedia
inanonlinemaster’sdegreecourseinStatistics. ItisbasedonthecomparisonbetweenWikipediacontentand
standardacademiclearningmaterials. Wedefinethistechniqueas ‘learningbycomparing’. Inordertoevaluate
the performance of this learning technique, data from different academic semesters was collected. Through
differenthypothesistests, theacademicperformanceofthestudentsfollowingalearning-by-comparingstrategy
iscomparedwiththecasewhereWikipediaisnotused.
Additionally, duringthe coursethestudents areasked aboutthe reliability, currentness, completenessand
usefulnessofWikipedia, asratedona5-pointLikertscale. Thisdataisusedtoanalyse theperceivedqualityof
Wikipedia, foreachstatisticalconceptofthecourse, andtodiscoveritsrelationshipwithacademicperformance. To
thatend, descriptivestatistics, dependencetests, andcontrastsofmeanshavebeenperformed.
Keywords
e-Learning, highereducation, Wikipedia, academicperformance, quality
Aprendiendo mediante la comparación con Wikipedia: su importancia en el aprendizaje de los estudiantes
Resumen
El objetivo principal de este trabajo de investigación es describir y evaluar una técnica de aprendizaje que utiliza activamente Wikipedia, en el marco de una asignatura de Estadística de un máster en línea. Esta técnica se fundamenta en la comparación entre el contenido de Wikipedia y materiales académicos de aprendizaje estándar. Definimos esta técnica como «aprendi-zaje mediante la comparación». Con el fin de evaluar el rendimiento de esta técnica de aprendi«aprendi-zaje, se han recogido datos de diferentes semestres académicos. Por medio de varias pruebas de hipótesis, se compara el desempeño académico de los estudiantes que han seguido esta estrategia de aprendizaje mediante la comparación con el de los que no la han utilizado. Durante el curso se pregunta a los estudiantes sobre la fiabilidad, la actualización, la completitud y la utilidad de Wiki-pedia, mediante una escala Likert de 5 puntos. Estos datos son utilizados en este artículo para analizar la calidad percibida de Wikipedia, para cada concepto estadístico de la asignatura, y para descubrir su relación con el rendimiento académico. Para ello, se han utilizado estadística descriptiva, pruebas de dependencia y contrastes de medias.
Palabras clave
e-learning, enseñanza superior, Wikipedia, rendimiento académico, calidad
L
earning
by
comparing
w
ith
W
i
k
ipedia:
the
v
alue
to
students
’
learning
A
ntoni
Meseguer
-A
rtola
OpenUniversityofCatalonia(UOC), Spain|ameseguer@uoc.edu
1
.
I
ntroduction
Itiswellknownamonglecturersthatthecompleteunderstandingofaconceptortopiccommonlyariseswhen
onehastoexplainthatconceptortopictostudents. Isitpossibletoreproducesuchasituationinthelearning
processofastudent? Isitpossibletodoitonavirtualcourse? Thispapergivesapossibleanswertothosequestions,
throughacasestudyrelatedtoapilotthatwascarriedoutfortwosemestersonthemaster’sdegreeprogramme
inInformationandKnowledgeSocietyintheIN3InstituteattheOpenUniversityofCatalonia(UOC), Spain(http://
in3.uoc.edu). Thesolutionproposedinthispaperisinspiredontheproposalandonthepositiveresultsobtainedin Petersetal. (2013), andfoundedontheactiveuseofWikipediathroughaguided-discoverylearningstrategy. Inthe
caseofe-learning, thisconstructiviststrategyisdeemedadequate(Moreno & Bailly-Baillière, 2002).
AlthoughWikipediaisbroadlyusedbystudentsatanyacademiclevelasaninitialsourceofinformation, itis
difficultto findhighereducationcoursesinwhichWikipediaplaysacentralroleinthelearningprocess(Llados
etal, 2013). In this paper, weshow how ithas beenused in acourseon AdvancedStatistics toimprovethe
students’academicperformance. Duringthecourse, studentswereaskedtoanswerdifferentquestionsrelatedto
theirperceivedqualityofWikipediacomparedtothatofthestandardacademiclearningmaterialsofthecourse.
Inthiscomparisonprocess, as animportantpartoftheirlearningperformance, theyhavetoprovideevidence
(examples)aboutthelevelofcompleteness, reliability, currentnessandusefulnessofWikipediainordertosupport
theiranswers. Thestudentsareguidedtolearnbycomparingdifferentsourcesofinformation. Foreachunitofthe
course, thestudentsareprovidedwithtwotypesoflearningresources. Ontheonehand, studentshaveaWikipedia
articlerelatedtothemaintopicoftheunitand, ontheotherhand, theyhaveseveralacademicdocuments(from
theUOCorfromotheruniversities).
In thispaper, wewill perform twotypesof analysis. First, wetest theinfluenceof thecomparativeuse of
Wikipediainthelearningframework. The firsthypothesisthatwillbetestedisthefollowing:
Hypothesis 1: The learning-by-comparing technique with Wikipedia has a positive effect on the students’ academic
performance.
Inorder toevaluatethe performanceof this learningtechnique, datafrom different academicsemesters was
collected. Weexaminewhetherthestudents’academicperformance(measuredwiththe finalgradesobtainedin
thecourse)isbetterinthosesemesterswhenWikipediaisusedthaninthepreviousones.
Second, weanalysethestudents’perceivedqualityofWikipediaanditsrelationshiptothelearningprocess. Since
theassessmentactivitiesofthecoursefocusonverydifferentquantitativeconcepts, itisimportanttounderstand
iftheperceivedqualitychangesacrosstopics. Wearealsointerestedindeterminingifitdependsonthetypeof
students, wheretypeisdeterminedbythestudents’gradesacrosstheirassessment. Thehypothesesassociated
withtheseinitialstatementsandtestedinthispaperarethefollowing:
Hypothesis 2: Students agree with the idea that Wikipedia has a good level of quality.
Hypothesis 3: The perceived quality of Wikipedia does not depend on the students’ grades.
Thispaperisorganisedas follows:usingtheframeworkofconstructivistlearningtheory, Section2definesthe
4 evaluates the performance ofthe learning strategy, byusing different data sources and different statistical
techniques. Section5summarisesthemain findingsofthepaperandexplainsthemainlimitationsofthestudyas
wellasfurtherlinesofresearch.
2
.
L
earning
by
comparing
Researchinanalogyshowsthatcomparingtwoinstructionalexamplesfacilitatesknowledgetransfer(Gill, 2011).
Oneofthemainobjectivesofeducationistofacilitatetheabilitytoapplyknowledgetodifferentsituations, which
iscentraltolearningabstractconceptsintheframeworkofanalogicalreasoning(Richlandetal., 2004).
Inanalogicalreasoning, studentsarerequiredtodeveloptheabilityto findunderlyingstructuralsimilarities
amongcorrespondingobjects(Holyoak & Thagard, 1995). Inthispaperweproposealearningtechniquethatis
basedonthisanalogicalreasoning. Inthelearning-by-comparingtechnique, studentshavetoanalyseboththe
similaritiesandthedifferencesbetweentwo(ormaybemore)learningmaterialsthatexplainthesametopic. They
havetocomparedifferentwaysofdescribingthesamesubject.
Academic literature provides evidence of the fact that students gain a robust learning when analogical
reasoningispromotedingeneral(Gentner & Namy, 2006), andalsointhespecific fieldofstatistics(Thomas, 2008).
Comparisonbetweenanaloguesalsoyieldsstrongersolutionschemas(Gill, 2011). Inthispaper, wewilltestthose
results, inthespecialcaseofavirtualcourseonQuantitativeMethods.
Ineducationalresearch, thereisstilldebateabouthowcomparisonsshouldbemadeandwhattheappropriate
levelof direct instruction isto optimally facilitate that comparison (Koedinger & Aleven, 2007). Constructivist
learning theory states that guided-discovery learning is the optimal solution to those questions, where few
instructionsaregiventothestudents(Mayer, 2004). Wewillplaceourtheoreticalframeworkhere, wherethereisa
balancebetweenthepureconstructivistperspectiveandtheinstructionalapproach. Inthecaseofe-learning, this
isthemostadequateoption(Moreno & Bailly-Baillière, 2002). Theactiveuseofinformationandcommunication
technologies(ICTs)inthevirtual learningenvironmentfordifferent purposes(communication, textnavigation,
informationaccess, etc.), resultsinaverypositiveexperienceoflearningtobuildknowledge(Hernández Requena,
2008).
3
.
A
pplication
of
the
learning
techni
q
ue
3
.
1
Course
description
Inthemaster’sdegreeprogrammeinInformationandKnowledgeSocietyatIN3-UOC(http://in3.uoc.edu), acourse whereWikipediahasbeenactivelyusedasalearningtoolhasbeendeveloped; “Advanced Quantitative Methods in Knowledge Society Research”.
Oneofthemainobjectivesofthiscourseistocomplementthestatisticalknowledgedevelopedinprevious
basicquantitativecoursesbyobtainingagoodknowledgeofsomeofthemostrelevantadvancedquantitative
ofstudy, andtheircomplementarity. Withthesetechniques, thestudentsperformvariousassessmentactivities
byusingdifferentstatisticalpackagesanddiscussingpossiblerelationshipsofdependenceorinterdependence
betweenvariables.
Althoughitisapracticalcourse, whereeachtechniqueisappliedtoparticularcases, withrealdata, theyalso
havebasicreferencesin theformofbothWebmaterialsandarecommendedbibliographytounderstandthe
theoreticalfoundationsofeachtechnique.
3
.
2
Course
methodology
Thelearningmethodologyofthiscourseisthatofacontinuousassessmentactivity. Thisactivityisalearningstrategy
integratedintothelearningprocess, conceivedasamechanismforlearningandgivingreciprocalfeedback. Itisthe
mostappropriatestrategyintheconstructivistlearningmethodologywithintheframeworkofe-learning(Jonassen
etal., 1999). ThiscourseisanappliedcourseonQuantitativeMethods, whichshowshoweachtechniquecan
beusedtotestdifferentresearchhypotheses. Thecourseisdividedintofourunits:SamplingMethods, Topicsin
Econometrics, StructuralEquationModelling(SEM), andNeuralNetworks(NN).
Therearefourassessmentactivities, oneforeachunitofthecourse. Eachactivityhasatheoreticalpartandan
appliedpart. Thedesignoftheseassessmentassignmentsaimstocontributetothefollowinglearningobjectives
andcompetencesofthemaster’sdegreeprogrammeofwhichthiscourseformspart:
t Good knowledge of the most relevant quantitative and qualitative techniques, their advantages and
disadvantages, theirapplicabilityaccordingtothetypeofdataandobjectsofstudy, andtheircomplementarity.
t Abilitytodeterminethefeasibilityandreliability, andthestrengthsandweaknessesofdifferentmethodsand
techniques.
t Awarenessofthepossibilities, opportunitiesandissuesposedbyempiricalanalysisoftheInternetandother
ICTs.
t Masteringofastatisticalsuitethatfacilitatestheapplicationofstatisticaltechniques, analysisofdata and
drawingofconclusions.
To answerthe questions proposedin the assessments, thestudents are providedwiththe following learning
resources:
Theoretical part:
r Wikipedia:thisfreeencyclopaediaisusedtointroducedifferenttheoreticalconcepts.
r Learning materials:includingsomepartsofbooks, orotherWebmaterials. Theseareusedtogivetothe
studentsthefoundationsofeachstatisticaltechnique. Thesematerialsalsointroducethestudenttothebasic
conceptsassociatedwitheachtechnique. Onaverage, threereferencesaregivenperunit.
r A research article:aresearcharticleisgiventothestudentsinordertoshowhowthestatisticaltechnique
isusedtotestthehypothesis. Thediscussionofthearticle, throughthequestionsstatedineachproblemset,
isthecentreofeachassessmentactivity, andwillhelpstudentsunderstanditsbenefitsanddisadvantages.
r A statistical package and data:sincethis course isorientedtowards theapplicationof theproposed
techniques, statisticalpackagesareneededinordertodocomputations. Differentstatisticalpackagesare
used(suchasGretl, MXandJavaNNS), dependingonthecharacteristicsofeachtopic, toanalysethedataand tocomplementthediscussionofthereferencearticle.
Inthe theoreticalpart, thestudents are asked aboutthesimilarities betweenthe twosources ofinformation,
concerningsomeaspectsofthequalityoftheinformation. Theyhavetocomparethedocumentsinwhichthesame
topicisexplained. Withrespecttotheappliedpart, theyhavetoreproducethecomputationsthatareperformedin
theresearcharticle, butusingdifferentvariablesinthedatasetsassociatedwiththeresearcharticleorevendifferent
datasets. Finally, theyhavetointerprettheresultsobtainedwiththestatisticalpackageandtocomparethemwith
thoseproposedintheresearcharticle.
Hence, inthelearning-by-comparingtechniqueembeddedinthecourse, therearetwotypesofcomparisons;
the firstonefromthetheoreticalperspective, andthesecondonefromthepracticalperspective. Theresultsfrom
eachapproachhadanequalweightinginthe finalgradeoftheassessment.
PriortotheintroductionoftheactiveuseofWikipediainthe firstsemesterofthe2012/2013academicyear, the
coursehadthesamestructure:fourassessmentactivities, oneforeachunitofthecourse, withatheoreticalpart
andanappliedpart. Theonlydifferencebetweentheexercisesinthestatementswasthat, inthenewversionofthe
course, fourtheoreticalquestionsaboutWikipediawereincluded.
4
.
E
v
aluation
of
the
learning
techni
q
ue
4
.
1
Data
sources
InordertoanalysetheactiveuseofWikipediainthelearningprocessofthecourse, weconsideredtwodifferentdata
sources. The firstoneisthedataobtainedfromaquestionnairethatwasintroducedineachofthefourassessment
activities. ThestudentswereaskedabouttheirperceptionsofWikipediawithrespecttothefollowingfourquality
aspects; completeness, reliability, currentnessandusefulness:
Question 1.Compared with the other learning materials, do you think that Wikipedia gives a complete introduction to this
statistical technique?
Question 2.Compared with the other learning materials, do you think that Wikipedia gives reliable information about this
statistical technique?
Question 3.Compared with the other learning materials, do you think that the information about this statistical technique
in Wikipedia is current?
StudentsarerequiredtoanswerthesequestionsbycomparingWikipediawiththe“standard”learningmaterials,
andtoprovideevidence(examples)tosupporttheiranswers. Tofacilitatethestatisticalanalysis, theyhavetorate
theiranswersona5-pointLikertscale(where1 = “completelydisagree”and5 =“completelyagree”).
Thesecondsourceofinformationisthestudents’academicgradesineachassessmentactivityandthe final
gradeforthecourse. Thisdatawillallowustoevaluatetheperformanceofthislearningtechnique. Thegradesrank
from1(D, poorgrade)to5(A, excellentgrade).
Allthisdatawascollectedfrom differentacademicsemestersinordertocomparetheresultsobtained. We
haveconsideredthesecondsemesterofthe2011/2012academicyear, whenWikipediawasnotused, andthetwo
semestersofthe2012/2013academicyear, whenWikipediawasactivelyimplementedinthelearningtechnique.
Table1showsthenumberofstudentsenrolledonthecoursesconsideredintheanalysis.
Table 1.Number of students per course
2011/2 2012/1 2012/2
28 22 21 71
4
.
2
Results
First, apreliminaryanalysisofthe finalgradesofthecourse(rangingfrom1to5), basedoncontinuousassessment,
isconductedacrossthedifferent learningstrategies(thatis, withoutandwiththeWikipediacomparisons). The
resultsofthe ANOVA testin Table2showthatthereisasignificantdifference(p-valueequals0.073)betweenthe
meanofthetwosemesterswhenWikipediawasused(W=1)andthe firstsemester(W=0).
Sincestudentsarenotassignedrandomlytothegroups, factorsotherthantheuseofWikipediamayhavean
influenceontheexplanationofthedifferenceobtainedinthestudents’academicperformance(Rosenbaum, 2002).
Forthepurposeofthispaper, andtakingintoaccountthattheprocessofrecruitmentandthestructureofthe
master’sdegreecoursearethesamefortheanalysedsemesters, wewillassumethatthereissomehomogeneity
betweenthestudents’characteristics. Thisassumptionwillallowustofocusourattentiononthemostrelevant
differencebetweensemesters:theactiveuseofWikipedia.
Hence, wecaninferthatthedifferentacademicoutcomesareclearlyinfluencedbytheuseofthesetwodifferent
learningstrategies. Furthermore, sincethemeanwhenWikipediawasused(4.61)isgreaterthaninthecasewhereit
wasnot(4.29), thereisapositiveeffectoftheactiveuseofWikipediaonthestudents’academicperformance. This
isoneofthemainresultsinthispaper(Hypothesis1), andisconsistentwiththeliteratureshowingstudentsgain
robustlearningwhenanalogicalreasoningispromoted(Gentner & Namy, 2006).
Aftercheckingthesuitabilityoftheproposedtechnique, wewantedtoknowifthispositiveresultdependedon
thedifferenttopicsofthecourse. Bycomparingthemeansofthestudents’resultsingroupW=1ineachassessment
(AA1=3.83, AA2=4.28, AA3=4.20, and AA4=4.12)throughatwo-samplet-test, we findthattherearenosignificant
differencesbetweenthem. Allp-valuesaregreaterthan0.1(see Table3). Thegradesarequitehomogeneousandwe
donothaveinitialevidencetosuggestthatthestudents’learningprocessinanyoftheunitsleadstodifferentresults
withrespecttotheothers. Theefficiencyofthelearningtechniqueissimilar, independentlyofthecharacteristics
Table 3.Difference in grades between assessment activities
AA1 AA2 AA3 AA4
AA1 - -1.53 (0.13) -1.26 (0.21) -0.97 (0.34)
AA2 - 0.22 (0.83) 0.42 (0.67)
AA3 - 0.21 (0.83)
Data in each cell: t-value (p-value)
TheperceivedqualityofWikipediaismeasuredbyfourdifferentfactors:theperceptionofitscompleteness, its
reliability, itscurrentnessanditsusefulness(Chuttur, 2009). Ifweconsiderthattherearenosignificantdifferences
betweenassessments(basedontheresultsin Table3), wecanaggregatetheperceptionofeachfactorthrough
theassessments, andanalysewhetherthesefourfactorsmeasureauniqueconstruct(thequalityofWikipedia).
Ascanbeseenin Table4, Cronbach’s alphaassociatedwiththeseitemsisequalto0.76, andgreaterthanthe
requested0.70level(Cronbach, 1947). Concerningtheitem-totalcorrelation, we findthatallvaluesareabove0.60,
therecommendedlevelfor fieldstudies(Ahnetal., 2007). Furthermore, thefactorloadingsarealsogreaterthan
therecommendedvalueof0.60(Ahnetal., 2007). Hence, fromtheinternalpointofview, theconstruct“Qualityof
Wikipedia”, measuredthroughthesefourfactors, isdeemedadequate.
Table 4. Item analysis
Item Cronbach’s alpha Item-total correlation Factor loadings
Complete
0.76
0.67 0.80
Reliable 0.62 0.79
Current 0.60 0.62
Useful 0.70 0.81
One-way ANOVA: FQ versus W
Source DF SS MS F P
W 1 1.469 1.469 3.34 0.073
Error 58 25.514 0.440
Total 59 26.983
S = 0.6632 R-Sq = 5.45% R-Sq(adj) = 3.82%
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev ---+---+---+---+ 0 24 4.2917 0.8065 (---*---)
1 36 4.6111 0.5492 (---*---)
---+---+---+---+ 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 Pooled StDev = 0.6632
Inthelastrowof Table5, wecanseethatallstudentsagreethatWikipediaiscomplete, reliable, currentand
useful, sinceeachfactor’smeanisabove3(answersrangedfrom1=“completelydisagree”to5=“completelyagree”),
andcloserto4. Takingintoaccounttheresultsinthepreviousitemanalysis, wecanaffirmthatstudentsagreewith
theideathatWikipediahasagoodqualitylevel(Hypothesis2). Themostvaluedfactorineachassessment, and
alsointheaggregated case, isalwayscurrentness(clearlyabove4). Comparedwithclassicacademicresources,
thestudentsperceivethatWikipediaiscurrent, containsrecentinformationandrecentreferences. Thisresultdoes
notcoincidewiththeopinionoffacultymembersfromdifferentknowledgeareas. Preliminaryconclusionsabout
thequalityofWikipediainamoregeneralstudy(ProjectWIKI4HE, http://oer.uoc.edu/wiki4HE/about/)showthat currentnessistheworstvaluedfactor. Only14% ofrespondentsagreethatWikipediaisuptodate(Aibaretal., 2013).
Table 5.Mean of the perception of each quality factor
Completeness Reliability Currentness Usefulness
AA1 3.80 3.85 4.23 4.08
AA2 3.80 4.03 4.26 3.80
AA3 3.61 3.94 4.15 3.67
AA4 3.27 3.61 4.15 3.42
Aggregate 3.63 3.86 4.20 3.76
TheleastvaluedfactorbystudentsisWikipedia’scompleteness. Althoughall figuresareabove3, itseemsthat
thisisthefactorthathastobeimprovedinordertoenhancetheperceivedqualityofWikipedia. Thestudents
believethattheacademiclearningresourcesaremorecompletethanWikipedia. Inanycase, wehavetobearin
mindthatWikipediaisjustanencyclopaedia, whoseaimistofacilitateagoodintroductiontothesubjects. Itsaim
isnottogiveacompleteviewofatopic.
Finally, wewantedtocheckifthere wassomerelationship betweentheperceivedqualityofWikipediaand
academicperformanceineachassessment. Tothatend, wewillcomparethemeanoftheperceptionofeach
qualityfactorforeachpossiblegradelevel. In Table6theresultsofthe ANOVA testarepresented. Sinceallp-values
areclearlygreaterthan0.05, wecanconcludethatthereisnodifferencebetweengroups. Hence, theperception
ofqualitydoesnotdependonthestudents’grades(Hypothesis3). Thisshowstherobustnessofthemeasurement
oftheperceptionofeachfactor, andthestrongeffectofWikipediaontheimprovementofacademicperformance
(testedin Table2).
Table 6.Difference between grade levels of the quality factor values
Completeness Reliability Currentness Usefulness
AA1 2.05 (0.14) 2.24 (0.12) 0.39 (0.68) 1.95 (0.13)
AA2 0.73 (0.49) 1.85 (0.17) 0.17 (0.84) 0.67 (0.52)
AA3 0.16 (0.85) 0.18 (0.84) 0.05 (0.95) 1.08 (0.35)
AA4 0.59 (0.63) 0.88 (0.46) 0.96 (0.43) 1.50 (0.24)
5
.
C
onclusions
The main result of the paper shows that there isa significant difference betweenthe two semesters of the
2011/2012academicyearandthepreviouscoursewhenWikipediawasnotused. TheactiveuseofWikipediainthe
learningprocess, throughthelearning-by-comparingtechnique, improvesthestudents’academicperformance.
Thisconclusionalsobearsouttheknownresultthatstudentsgainarobustlearningwhenanalogicalreasoningis
promoted(Gentner & Namy, 2006).
Themain findingsonthestudents’perceivedqualityofWikipediaindicatethattheyagreewiththeideathatthe
encyclopaediaiscomplete, reliable, currentanduseful. Althoughthereisapositiveperceptionofquality, thereare
somequalityfactorsthatobtainbetterscoresthanothers. Themostvaluedqualityaspectwasthecurrentnessof
thecontent, andtheleastvaluedwasitscompleteness. Wehaveshownthatthisresultisrobust, sinceitdoesnot
dependonthetopicstudiedorthegradesobtainedbythestudents.
ThisworkalsoillustratesthatWikipediacanbeviewednotjustasanencyclopaediathatcanbeusedoccasionally
toresolvecertaindoubts, butalsoasanactiveelementofthelearningprocess. Inthispaper, wehaveshownhowit
canbeimplementedinanonlinecourse, throughthelearning-by-comparingtechnique, anditsapparentpositive
effectonstudentlearning.
A limitationofthisanalysisisthatithasbeenperformedonaspecifictypeofcourse(onlinemaster’sdegree
courseinStatistics)andonsmallgroupsofstudents. Futureresearchshouldapplythislearningtechniquetoother
knowledgeareasandbiggergroupsofstudentsfromdifferenthighereducationlevelstoassessitsusefulness.
Anotherlimitationoftheresearchresultsistheassumptionthattheonlydifferencebetweengroupshastobe
associatedwiththeactiveuseofWikipedia. Althoughthereareno“external”differencesbetweensemesters(for
example, intheprocessofrecruitmentofthestudents, orinthestructureofthemaster’sdegreecourse, etc.), there
maybeother“internal”factors(apartfromtheuseofWikipedia)influencingthestudents’academicperformance.
WhilethemostrelevantdifferencebetweensemestersistheactiveuseofWikipedia, wehavetotakeintoaccount
thattheremaybesignificantdifferencesinthosefactorsassociatedwiththestudents’personalcharacteristics. The
studentsdifferfromonesemestertotheother. Sincewedonothavedataaboutthosefactors, ithasnotbeen
possibletoincorporatethemintothepaper’sdiscussion. Infutureresearch, somethingthatneedstobetestedis
whetherthedifferencesbetweengroupscanalsobeexplainedbyotherinternalfactorssuchasthese. Additionally,
toavoidthepotentialbiasintheestimatedeffectsoftheuseofWikipediaduetothefactthatthestudentsare
notrandomlyallocatedtoagroup(W=0orW=1), adjustmentsforthepropensityscoreshouldbemadeinfuture
research(Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983).
Finally, giventheobserveddiscrepancybetweenthestudents’andthefacultymembers’perceivedqualityof
Wikipedia(analysedintheprojectWIKI4HE), understandingthedifferenceswillalsobepartofthefutureresearch
plan.
References
Ahn, T., Ryu, S., & Han, I. (2007). Theimpactofwebqualityandplayfulnessonuseracceptanceofonlineretailing.
Information & Management, 44, 263-275. doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.12.008
onFacultyPerceptionsandPractices. InL. Gómez Chova, A. López Martínez, & I. Candel Torres(Eds.), EDULEARN13 Proceedings (pp. 4269-4275). International Associationfor Technology, EducationandDevelopment, IATED.
Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overviewofthe Technology AcceptanceModel:Origins, DevelopmentsandFutureDirections.
Working Papers on Information Systems, 9. IndianaUniversity, USA.
Cronbach, L. (1947). Test“reliability”: Its meaningand determination. Psychometrica, 16, 1-16. doi http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/BF02289289
Gill, P. (2011). Learning byComparing:Effects ofDirectInstruction, Discovery andDelayon Analogical Transfer.
Dietrich College Honors Theses.Paper120. CarnegieMellonUniversity.
Gentner, D., & Namy, L. L. (2006). Analogicalprocessesinlanguagelearning. Psychological Science, 15, 297-301. doi
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00456.x
Hernández Requena, S. (2008). Elmodeloconstructivistaconlasnuevastecnologías:aplicadoenel procesode
aprendizaje. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento, 5, 26-35. doi http://dx.doi.org/10.7238/rusc.
v5i2.335
Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995). Mental leaps. Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A Constructivist Perspective. (1sted.). Upper Saddle, NJ:Merrill, PrenticeHall.
Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors.
Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239-264. doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9049-0
Lladós, J., Aibar, E., Lerga, M., Meseguer, A., & Minguillón, J. (2013). AnEmpiricalStudyonFacultyPerceptionsand
TeachingPracticesofWikipedia. InM. Ciussi & M. Augier(Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on e-Learning(pp. 258-265). Reading, UK: AcademicConferencesandPublishingInternationalLimited.
Peters, P., Smith, A., Middledorp, J., Karpin, A., Sin, S., & Kilgore, A. (2013). Learning essential terms and
concepts in Statistics and Accounting. Higher Education Research & Development, 32. doi http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/07294360.2013.863838
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should ThereBea Three-StrikesRule AgainstPureDiscoveryLearning?. American Psychologist, 59,
14-19. doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
Moreno, F., & Bailly-Baillière, M. (2002). Diseño instructivo de la formación online. Aproximación metodológica a la elaboración de contenidos(1sted.)Barcelona: ArielEducación.
Richland, L. E., Holyoak, H. J., & Sigler, J. W. (2004). Analogygenerationineighthgrademathematicsclassrooms.
Cognition and Instruction, 22, 37-60. doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2201_2
Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). AttributingEffectsto TreatmentinMatchedObservationalStudies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 183-192. doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1198/016214502753479329
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). Thecentralroleofthepropensityscoreinobservationalstudiesforcausal
effects. Biometrics, 70, 41-55. doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
Thetextspublishedinthisjournalare–unlessindicatedotherwise–coveredbytheCreativeCommons Spain Attribution 3.0 licence. Youmaycopy, distribute, transmitandadaptthework, providedyouattributeit (authorship, journalname, publisher)inthemannerspecifiedbytheauthor(s)orlicensor(s). Thefulltextofthe licencecanbeconsultedhere:<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es/deed.en>
Ab
out
the
author
Antoni Meseguer-Artolaameseguer@uoc.edu
AssociateLecturer, EconomicsandBusinessStudies, OpenUniversityofCatalonia(UOC), Spain
AntoniMeseguer-Artolaisan associatelecturerinStatistics, Mathematicsand Game Theory attheOpen University ofCatalonia(UOC), Spain. HeholdsadoctorateinEconomicsandBusinessSciences(1997)andamaster’sdegreein Economic Analysis, withintheInternationalDoctorateinEconomic Analysis, bothfromthe AutonomousUniversityof Barcelona(UAB), Spain. Furthermore, heholdsabachelor’sdegreeinMathematicsfromtheUniversityofBarcelona(1992),
withaMajorin AppliedMathematics.
BeforejoiningtheUOC, hewasanassistantlecturerinStatisticsandMathematicsintheDepartmentofEconomicsand EconomicHistoryattheUAB(1992-1997). AttheUOC, hehascoordinatedtheStatisticsandMathematicsarea, andserved asdirectorofthebachelor’sdegreeprogrammeinWorkSciences(2001-2006)andasdeanoftheFacultyofEconomics andBusinessSciences(2006-2010).
AsamemberoftheIN3’sresearchgroupONE, hecontributestothelinesofresearchonpricecompetitiononthe Internet, driving factors for e-commercedissemination, consumer behaviour invirtual learning environments, and e-learning. Ineachoftheselines, hehasproducedarticlesandconferencepapers. Heisalsotheauthorofhandbookson MathematicsandStatistics.
UniversitatObertadeCatalunya
