Using Wikis, Blogs and Google Docs - Essay Example

?XiaoYi Wu W131ML Mr. O’Donnell 29 April Using wikis, blogs and Google docs The development of technology facilitated collaborative learning in ways that were never possible before. The integration of collaborative learning tools alllowed students to work together and easier making information not only readily available but also accessible. These collaborative tools such as Wiki, blogs and google docs blogs are the most common platform in the collaborative efforts of students. One of the most popular collaborative tools and even in research among students albeit not many would like to admit it because it is inadmissible as a reference in academic writing is the Wiki. Notably is the Wikipedia where its users/audience can edit, modify, revise and even change the original work allowing for the content to improve as more audience use it. Unlike in blog where the content is exclusively from the point of view of the author, Wikipedia is a result of a collaborative work among its various users improving it over time. In Wiki, all of its visitors can be its collaborators and therefore it is more of a discussion platform than blogging (Davis 2006). These visitors who could edit, add and even modify the original work anonymously without reward are Wiki’’s strongest feature known as crowd sourcing. According to Engstrom &Jewett, Wiki is primarily a collaborative research that analyzes divergent points of view (2005). Wiki is indeed a good tool for collaborative work that involves a large number of people because it does not put a limit on a number of people who could edit and improve the original work. The page can also be edited or modified over a number time without capping the frequency of the changes made in the original work. This way, the original text is enriched by the contributions and collaborative work of its visitors making the content better as time goes by. This was validated in one of my education course class where our professor asked everyone in the class to work on one broad subject during the semester. The exercise revealed that everyone was engaged on the wiki page and the broad subject was eventually subdivided into various categories as time and student progresses illustrating how collaborative tools such as wiki can improve and provide an opportunity to share knowledge and perspective to other people. Moreso, Wikis has also proven that by itself, they are also an effective teaching tool because it engages the student in the learning process. Wiki’s efficacy can be lent in Cynthia Haven argument in her paper that states “today’s kids don’t just write for grades anymore. They write to shake the world.” The most famous feature of the Wikipedia is “Crowd-sourcing”—when multiple people contribute to a site to make it better (anonymously—with no reward), people devote their time and energy on the website not just for grades or any repay. They write to communicate, to share their own knowledge, to get a sense of power. With various and mass information provided, more and more students using Wikipedia as their reference on their writing. At the same time, more and more anti—wiki professors and scholars are dismissing wiki as “incomplete” and “downright false” for it to be abandoned in academic study. The precaution of the academics against Wikipedia is not without basis and I believe that every student who uses the platform should be aware of its caveat. True, Wikipedia has many benefits but it also has its own downside. The source had fatal information errors that included “false deaths reports”, “libel” and “miscellaneous hoaxes and mistakes” and therefore is susceptible to false information. At top of the false death report— Ted Kennedy’s death, “the wiki page falsely reported the “death” of Sen. Edward Kennedy, while he actually did suffer a seizure during the post-inaugural luncheon for Barack Obama”. This has been corrected by an anonymous user but still the incidence demonstrated the vulnerability of the platform towards inaccuracy when people are allowed to post without any authentication. The rest of the blunders are also shocking enough to pay attention to. With those blunders that the Wikipedia committed, the credibility of the website has been doubted. It is also the reason why people say “ when it comes to class assignments, it’s one of the biggest no-nos: Whatever you do, don’t source Wikipedia” (Boesveld, 2011). As a suggestion Wikipedia should be taken as it is, a product of a collaborative work and not a reference whose information are considered to be etched in stone because the information there are not authenticated unlike in scientific journals where it undergo stringent academic process of academic peer review to authenticate its contents. It should not however be dismissed as outright false because it could be helpful in familiarizing the student about a certain subject. Wikipedia has the potential to be useful, but there has to be strict regulation or monitoring of the content posted to Wikipedia. We have to be mindful that when we use the information from the Wikipedia, we are staking for the strictness of the academic. We have no idea whether the information provided by the Wikipedia are credible enough to be used in academic writing. Another good source for collaborative work is a blog. A blog “in a fundamental sense is characterized by its individual ownership that heightens individual responsibility and control.” (Deng and Yuen, 2009) And their difference is that “blogs are more opinionated than wikis, because wikis are a collaboration of facts by every individual student” (Davis 2006). Blogs are usually for people to comment on instead of editing or adding information. Also, only one person can post in a blog, and each post is author’s voice where other people are only allowed to leave comments in contrast to wiki’s “crowd-sourcing” feature. The blog serves better than wiki when people want to show their perspectives on something by talking about things that interest them. Unlike Wikipedia that is dismissed outright in an academic setting, blogs can become a reliable source of information depending on the author of the blog. In a collaborative learning class, teachers prefer using the blog to publish their essays or their specific works because of its relative credibility over Wikis. In the mainstream media, journals or expert column usually exists in the format of blogs where a person can discuss their thoughts on various topics like politics, fashion, music, etc., which they heighten their individual responsibility. Though wiki is good for large collaborative efforts, Google docs offer a better platform for multiple users to work on a synchronous collaboration on a single document (wiki is best for asynchronous). It has the distinct advantage over Wiki in that it allows “Sharing and Commenting for Collaboration and Immediate Feedback” as one of the six ways that Google docs support collaboration in the writing process. It has made the collaboration much more flexible and more convenient just like people are working face to face. It allows other people’s work to be seen while doing the editing making the collaboration easier. It also allows its users to communicate simultaneously right away in order to avoid the repetition of the work (Plourde, 2010). Anyone who took BUS-K201 at IU will definitely agree the advantage of using Google docs in collaborative learning. In the lecture session, we were required to cooperate with the assigned group members editing the same business strategy for Pizza X. Group members divided the work first and worked at each part of the editing, grading according to the attribution as well as the unitary and required all the editing to look like one person’s work in the end. Only Google docs could allow this type of collaboration work through it “Integrated Reference Tool” that also works well for international students when editing the document with native students, which definitely facilitate understandings of the work. All of these advantages and disadvantages of the Wikipedia, blogs and Google docs must be weighed in carefully by students when these are tools are used. They may have their own distinct advantages that provide ready information while facilitating collaborative work but it does not mean that we can already rely on them to produce a complete and credible academic work. This is particularly true with Wikipedia where the platform could be a source of information as well as a tool for learning process either in writing or research but we have to bear in mind that is vulnerable to error due to its very nature of allowing people to modify contents without authentication. We have to be careful that while crowd-sourcing has advantages, it also has its disadvantages especially in determining the credibility and integrity of the information posted there. The same goes for blogs. Blogs may have its relative advantage over Wikipedia in terms of reliability of information but we also have to bear in mind that the source has only one point of view – that is of the author of the content. The author of the content may be an expert in his or her field of expertise but still, it is just one point of view unlike scientific journals where it is a product of an exhaustive research that took into account varying points of view including those who opposed it. Google docs are useful tool too for collaborative work but with we have to admit that it is not as engaging as Wikipedia and blogs and is limited to synchronous work. Works Cited Davis V, 2006, My students Compare and Contrast Wikis and Blogs. Retrieved from http://coolcatteacher.blogspot.com/search?q=My+students+Compare+and+Contrast+Wikis+and+Blogs Liping D &Allan Y, 2009, Blogs in Higher Education: Implementation and Issues Mary E &Dusty J, 2005, Collaborative learning the wiki way http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02763725?LI=true Sarah B, 2011, Can Wikipedia improve students’ work? http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/30/can-wikipedia-improve-students-work/ TechThoughtStaff, 2012, 6 ways Google docs supports collaboration in the writing process. http://www.teachthought.com/technology/6-ways-google-docs-supports-collaboration-in-the-writing-process/ Plourde, Mathieu (2010). Why Chris Penna Uses Google Docs vs. Wikis for Collaborative Writing. April 29, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCBd9JE5uwk Read More