Wiki project 2012

Antonella Dagostino THE OPEN UNIVERSITY
1
Exploring the effects of collaborative learning in a
L2 Business English environment in Italy
Index
1. Focus of the project p. 2
2. The rationale for the redesign p. 3
3. A description of the settings p. 4
4. A description of the redesign p. 7
5. Evaluation of the redesign p. 12
6. The ethical issues p. 20
7. Critical reflection on the redesign p. 21
8. Appendices p. 25
E852
EMA RESEARCH PROJECT
by Antonella Dagostino
OU X8512925

2
1. Focus of the Project
The focus of this project is to explore the effects of collaborative
learning in an Italian company class of L2 Business English learners.
The project has been organised and carried out entirely online
through the use of modern digital tools; namely a WIKI, e-mails and
a final questionnaire.
The nature of this project should not only be considered exploratory
but tentative as well. As a matter of fact, neither the practitioner nor
the students had contributed to a wiki prior to this experience. In
particular, it should be noted that during the execution of this
project, not only the students but the researcher as well, have often
be required to experiment firsthand the principles highlighted in
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (1978) with particular reference to
the Zone of Proximal Development.
Although the initial focus presented in TMA 04 aimed at using a wiki
to enhance students’ text cohesion and participation beyond regular
class time, in light of what has emerged during the implementation
of the project, the focus had to be re-adjusted to explore students’
own perception of collaborative learning in a virtual environment.
It should be noted that even if the scope has been changed, the
tools of analysis remain unaltered apart from the adding of an on-
line questionnaire which has been used to analyse data from a
quantitative perspective. Needless to say, due to the exploratory
nature and the limited time available to carry out the project, the
data collected are not intended to be exhaustive but merely
indicative of a trend in a particular socio-cultural setting involving
company employees undergoing business English training in Italy.
The final focus has been established in accordance with socio-
cultural linguistic criteria by taking into consideration that the
participants involved in this project belong to a specific socio-
cultural linguistic group and consequently, have a lot in common.
This aspect should be considered rather relevant because the
participants often refer to either facts or even linguistic items that
are only intelligible to those who share a similar cultural and
linguistic background; such peculiar pattern had been identified by
Lantolf and Thorne who coined it as ‘private speech’ (2006, p. 201).
Finally, the focus of the present project implies that the concept of
intertextuality, as well as the Bakhtinian notion of dialogicality
(1981) are indiscernible from a web 2.0 learning environment and
should be considered integral parts of it.

3
2. The rationale for the redesign
My decision to focus on a Web 2.0 learning environment for the
redesign has been made by considering the contextualization of the
learning process from a socio-cultural linguistic perspective. As a
matter of fact, the learning process has been strongly influenced by
two major societal factors: digital innovation and multiculturalism.
As a result, exploring new teaching methodologies to suit the needs
of a growing number of digitally-literate multicultural learners is not
only necessary to bridge the gap between learners who have access
to unlimited resources in terms of knowledge and communication
from anywhere in the world and teachers, but it should also be
considered a priority to be attuned to a quickly evolving globalised
world.
Even if there are different Web 2.0 tools available for the purpose of
computer assisted language learning (CALL), I was strongly
impressed by the use of wikis introduced by university lecturer
Richard Buckland in a video linked to Unit 9 (E852, Study Guide). In
particular, a wiki appears to represent a perfectly democratic space
where knowledge is collectively constructed and meanings
constantly negotiated among its participants. This vision is in line
with Lund’s view regarding the concept of sociogenesis which
transcends individual aspects of learning switching from the theory
that learning is a process which occurs within the mind to the theory
that learning is a process which happens between minds. Lund
refers to this process as a collective and dynamic view of Vygotsky’s
ZPD (2008, p. 40).
A mere analysis of text cohesion would not have rendered justice to
a tool which enables students not only to interact with each other,
but also to propose, change, modify and create text
collaboratively.
While observing the participants’ contribution to the wiki, I realized
that, just as Deleuse and Guattari mentioned in their theory of the
rhizome (1980), a thought is unpredictable and could grow in
different directions with unlimited potential so what would happen if
a group of people had the possibility to contribute their own
thoughts at the same time? Such tool may unleash unlimited
potential especially if we consider the notion of intertextuality
originated from Bakhtin’s concept of dialogicality which seems to
perfectly fit a Web 2.0 learning environment. Whether in text or
spoken language, the principles of dialogical talk can be summarised
as follow:
For Bakhtin, all language - indeed, all thought - appeared dialogic. This means that
everything anybody ever says always exists in response to things that have been
said before and in anticipation of things that will be said in response.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogism

4
According to Hall (2012, p. 71), traditional approaches to teaching
hardly ever took into consideration learners’ linguistic and cultural
backgrounds outside the classroom, to the extent that they were
often considered as empty vessels to be filled with information. As
previously mentioned, a growing population of digitally-literate
multicultural learners will definitely possess their own cultural
background which may even be more consistent or perhaps, varied
than the teacher’s. This aspect is particularly pertinent in a class of
L2 business English adult learners whose vessels have already been
filled with standard cultural-linguistic notions typical of their own
heritage. For this reason, it is important that learners are provided
with the necessary tools to express themselves freely and our role
as teachers should be limited to provide such tools with the aim of
helping our students to become independent learners. Thus, a wiki
seems to be a suitable tool to encourage learners to express their
own ideas dialogically and collaboratively increasing knowledge as a
result.
3. A description of the settings
Participants:
Three groups of 5 Italian adult learners (females and males) for a
total of 15 participants, aged 25-50 whose L1 and socio-cultural
linguistic background is Italian. Participants are highly educated
holding a university degree or a high school diploma; however
detailed information about their educational background has not
been collected.
Prior to this course, the participants have been attending other
Business English courses organised by their company or while
attending school or university. Most of them lack confidence in their
communicative skills in English and would like to become more
confident in both spoken and written skills. Their main objective is to
improve their current level of proficiency for their job but they are
also interested in acquiring a high standard of proficiency for social
and personal interests such as travelling, reading and watching
films.
The participants work for a multinational commercial company based
in Italy where they have access to computers, internet connection,
projectors and other common types of digital media and tools used
for business. In-company training for a three month Business
English course requires a weekly attendance of 2 hours per lesson
for a total of 30 hours.

5
Participants’ level of proficiency has been identified as level B1 of
the Common European Framework.
The purpose of their regular Business English course is to acquire
the necessary skills to be able to deal with a globalised multicultural
business environment in English. All students have an excellent
knowledge of jargon related to their field of expertise thus the
course mainly aims at assisting them in arranging their knowledge
coherently with the objective of becoming more confident
communicators in both written and spoken skills.
The methodology used is a Communicative Language Approach
(student-centred) and the lesson is held entirely in the target
language. The environment is very informal and students often
propose their own material according to their needs at work. For
example, real presentations, meetings and conference calls are
often rehearsed in class to increase confidence in their
communicative skills. In this particular turbulent financial period in
Italy, students often feel the need to express their sense of
frustration and anger and the teacher assists them by, for instance,
providing a list of vocabulary related to the topic of discussion (e.g.:
GDP, downturn, austerity, etc.). Interestingly, students seem to
memorise vocabulary much more easily when they are emotionally
involved.
For the purpose of this project, students have agreed to participate
on a volunteer basis as their regular English course ended in June
and the scheduling of the project included a period between June
and August. Thus, contributions to the wiki have been made outside
regular working time, with particular preference for the weekend.
Location:
The company is situated in a small industrial town near Milan, Italy.
There are two training rooms on the ground floor of the three-storey
building. One can accommodate up to 10 people and the other about
20. Each class has a laptop computer with internet connection, a
projector, a white screen, a white board as well as tables and chairs.
The tables are arranged in a horseshoe manner to allow students to
interact with each other more easily and to create a warmer, less
formal atmosphere.
Virtual Location:
The on-line virtual setting includes:
1. A wiki (http://ethicalenglish4all.wikispaces.com)
2. E-mail communication
3. A final on-line questionnaire
(http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HK7TWRS)

6
A typical in-class lesson:
An example of a typical lesson can be structured as follow:
a. Listening to/watching on-line material from BBC learning
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish), The
Economist (http://www.economist.com/) or other sources twice
b. Asking comprehension questions at random
c. Revise and introduce new lexis and grammar items
d. Group or pair discussion based on the topic introduced
e. Written task related to the topic (eventually assigned as homework)
It should be noted that, even if the above structure looks quite
simple and easy to follow, it is necessary to have a great degree of
flexibility as some unpredictable factors may arise during the lesson.
A very common one is that a topic can be so thought provoking for
the students that they may wish to continue talking about it
endlessly, especially if there are discordant opinions in class. In such
a situation, participants are encouraged to express their feelings in
English ONLY and to respect common “rules” such as avoiding
overlapping talk, politically incorrect or plain offensive language.
Another common, still, unpredictable event, could be generated by
the fact that some students may make new connections related to
the topic introduced and decide to change the direction of the
lesson. For example, while introducing some elements of social
English whose focus was to entertain customers at a restaurant, the
students - who according to their cultural heritage consider cooking
and food as fundamental components of their lifestyle - ask me to
introduce lexical items related to food and we ended up having a
lesson about recipes!
As it can easily be assumed, the relationship with the students is
very informal and friendly thus the content of each lesson is always
negotiated with them. A very similar approach has been used with
the wiki however, probably due to the fact that the participants were
not familiar with this new instrument, no particular problem has
been detected during the duration of the project. Apart from the fact
that of the initial 15 students who agreed to participate to the
project, only 5 diligently followed it through! Reasons for this will be
discussed more in depth in section 7.

7
4. A description of the redesign
The present project has been carried out entirely on-line with the
aim of reflecting the existing learning environment students are
familiar with in lessons held at the company.
The layout of the wiki has been created with the intention of making
it as easily accessible as possible. Due to my inexperience with such
a tool, a few extra changes had to be made during the carrying out
of the project.
The following is a chronological account of the steps that were taken
before actually inviting students to join the wiki.
WIKI DESIGN
1. Creation of an account with wikispaces.com
(http://ethicalenglish4all.wikispaces.com)
2. Creation of the “home” page with instructions for participants
(http://ethicalenglish4all.wikispaces.com/). See screenshot A.
Screenshot A
3. Creation of a navigation bar on the left to allow participants to join their
own group, namely: Group B1-a, Group B1-b and Group B1-c. Each group
consisted of 5 learners.
4. Creation of Activity 1 (all the activities were exactly the same for each
group). To access the activity, students had to click on the link
correspondent to their group (e.g.: Group B1-a).
See screenshot B.

8
Screenshot B
Below there is an enlargement of the description of the activity. Participants were
supposed to watch a short BBC learning video before carrying out the activity.
5. Setting up of accounts for participants which included:
• a username
• a password
• an email address
6. Creation of a SCAFFOLDING section divided in the three activities used for
the project. Each activity contains a link to a personal page dedicated to
each participant as well as a general, traditional EFL style, grammar
revision based on participants’ common “problems” (See screenshot C,
p.9). In the personal page there are links to general explanations as well
as personal feedback (screenshot D, p.10).

9
Screenshot C
The following is an example taken from the collective Grammar Revision
(https://ethicalenglish4all.wikispaces.com/Activity+1)
It should be noted that the personal space was my part of the deal to thank
students for participating to the project despite their busy working schedule.

10
Example of a personal space (https://ethicalenglish4all.wikispaces.com/Erika)
SCREENSHOT D
7. Provide students with their login data to access the wiki.
Prior to this step, students had been furnished with a written explanation
of the project via e-mail which required their written consent.
The main aim of the redesign has been to explore the effects of
collaborative learning in a L2 Business English environment, thus the
virtual redesign has been based on the analysis of some common
dynamics of learning happening in class.
Dynamics of learning
In a face to face class, even if the number of students is limited to a
small group of five people, it becomes rather difficult to ensure that
each participant has enough time to express her views during a group
discussion. There are also other limitations which may belong to the
nature of the individuals. Some participants are shyer than others
and may not feel as confident when talking in front of an audience.
However, it is important to notice that learners do tend to naturally
collaborate with each other. For example, when a shy member of the
group cannot remember a particular term, all the other members
automatically start suggesting words which they think may suit the
case. However, one of the major risks of group discussion in class is
that the most confident and talkative learners may tend to
monopolise the conversation with the result of causing less confident
learners to feel inadequate and even drop out of the course.
Thus, participants are asked to work in pairs or in small groups of
three people (see fig.1). By contrast, even if in this way it is more
likely that everybody gets a chance to speak, every pair or small
group will not be aware about what the other people are doing unless

11
a representative of each group summarises their conversation at the
end of the talking session. However, this process may take up time
and even bore some of the participants.
fig.1
• Each colour represents an individual expression.
• Collaborative learning happens when the colours are superimposed.
• Unlike a wiki, each group is a separate galaxy unaware about what the others are doing
GROUP LEARNING IN CLASS
On the contrary, when using a wiki, the space dedicated to
collaborative activities allows the participants to be aware, as well as
intervene, to their peers’ contributions. All galaxies are thus
connected to form a single universe which can be defined as a
knowledge-building community (Kimmerle et al, 2010) where
collective and individual cognition merge into one (see fig.2).
fig.2
WEB 2.0 C0LLABORATIVE LEARNING
individual
contribution
individual
contribution
individual
contribution
individual
contribution
individual
contribution
WIKI
Universal
Knowledge

12
The redesign of the present project has been structured to evaluate
and explore the effects of collaborative learning through the use of a
wiki. Of course the mode to communicate in this case is restricted to
written language only; however, there are some peculiarities about
the use of a wiki which cannot be reproduced in class and vice-versa.
The most relevant is that every single participant gets the
opportunity to express herself no matter their level of fluency or
confidence. On the other hand, written contributions are published on
the wiki for everyone to see and, as a result, some learners may not
“speak” their mind as spontaneously as they would in the comfort
zone of their class. In such case, working in the outer limits of their
ZPD area includes holistic metacognitive processes which are not
restricted to mere language acquisition but comprehend behavioural
patterns as well as other skills such as digital ability and creativity.
Finally, there are also some practical reasons for which I selected a
wiki to redesign this particular area of learning. The most obvious is
that a wiki is very easy to use and its features can be learned in less
than five minutes as illustrated in a video on YouTube
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY) called Wikis in
Plain English whose link also appears on the wiki created for the
purpose of this project. Another fundamental reason, as pointed out
by Sykes et al. (2008, p.531) is that wikis are low or no cost for non-
commercial use such as the one I used for the purpose of this project
provided by: www.wikispaces.com.
5. Evaluation of the redesign
In any given historical moment of verbal-ideological life, each generation at
each social level has its own language; moreover, every age group has as a
matter of fact its own language, its own vocabulary, its own particular accentual
system that, in their turn, vary depending on social level, academic institution
(the language of the cadet, the high school student, the trade school student are
all different languages) and other stratifying factors.
Bakthin (1981, p. 290)
EVALUATING WIKI CONTRIBUTIONS
In contrast with traditional monological written text, the overall
perception about written contributions in a wiki is that it presents
some characteristics which are more commonly identified in speech
rather than written language.
Such features may be summarised as follow:

13
a. INFORMAL
There is a great degree of informality in the participants’
written contribution. It may be assumed that a web 2.0
environment encourages learners to “loosen up” and
express themselves as spontaneously as they would in a
“familiar” environment (see Extract 1).
Extract 1
(http://ethicalenglish4all.wikispaces.com/Group+B1+-+a)
Wow, a very interesting article! Now I'd like to know where is Italy in this list! I
think it could be in the middle... what do you think? The fact some other
countries such as Pakistan have not been assessed is important to me,
because they are really critical for women. Giulia
b. INCLUSIVE
Participants often ask questions to involve other
students as in Extract 1 above “...what do you think?”
This element may be taken as an example of collective
knowledge-building where learners can immediately
confront their reality with that of their peers. This
interactive aspect is a fundamental peculiarity of a web
2.0 learning environment which strongly relies on peers’
knowledge and not just the teacher’s. There is a strong
degree of negotiation involved which motivates students
to intervene more often as they become aware that their
opinions matter to form common knowledge. Following
Giulia’s invitation, the forum reached its climax with long
and articulated contributions such as that from Eleonora
(see Extract 2).
Extract 2
Hello, the past week have not been good and today I just wanted to get here. I
have seen since the discussion is on, well, I'm happy. I think we're very lucky,
our history has made great strides in Italy over the last forty years. Here there
is not yet complete equality of the sexes, but you must think that such family
law has been modified only in the middle seventies. Since then she has been
living for herself, I'll explain: first, the woman was a kind of eternal child that
passed from father's custody to her husband, although women had already
been granted the right to vote. also we can not hide the fact that women are
still subject to violence, and for the most cases they occur in the home. I
agree with Giuglia, there is no real policy to support women and families ...
and the fact that you say that there should be quotas for women speaks
volumes about the path that we still do.
Eleonora

14
c. DIALOGICAL TEACHING & LEARNING
The level of negotiation in a wiki is not restricted to
learners only but includes the teacher as well.
Participants and teacher in fact, tend to blend together
in a virtual neutral space where no individual is
recognised as the solely depositary of knowledge.
Suggestions from the teacher are taken more as part of
a knowledge sharing process rather than a hierarchical
imposition. As a result, the content of a lesson does not
have to be necessarily dictated authoritatively by the
teacher but can be negotiated with the participants to
stimulate learning. A clear example is an exchange I had
with a student who informed me about the reasons why
fewer people were participating to the third activity (see
Extract 3).
Extract 3
TEACHER:
Hello Davide & Eleonora
Fewer people commented on this topic. Is it because it is a difficult one or are
you too busy at work at the moment?
Please always feel free to write whatever you think!
Thank you!
STUDENT:
hello Antonella,
In my opinion, the question has two answers: the first is that WIKI are easy to
use but they need time off to connect to, then usually you do on weekends, but
now it's summer and we are all distracted by other things; the second reason
is that we will be more encouraged to comment on things you are close,
perhaps the topic was not common...thanks anyway!
Eleonora
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS
The final part of the project involved the filling of a closed questions
questionnaire (10 items) to explore participants’ feelings and habits
about their first wiki experience. The questionnaire was accessible
through the wiki by clicking on “STUDENTS’ FEEDBACK” on the left
side of the navigation bar
(http://ethicalenglish4all.wikispaces.com/Students%27+Feedback).
In addition, individual e-mails with the questionnaire URL address
were also sent to encourage students to complete it
(http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HK7TWRS).

15
Analysis of the responses
The overall analysis of the responses is rather interesting as most
students replied in a very similar manner. It should be noted that the
participants could not access their peers’ responses thus they were
not influenced by other people’s choices.
Item 1
The most indicative result is referred to item 1 where 100% (5/5) of
the participants claimed that their overall experience with the wiki
had been very good (see fig.3)
Fig.3
Item 2
The second question was strictly related to collaboration and in this
case it is interesting to notice that the majority of the students (80%)
found that the experience greatly increased collaboration, while only
one student claimed that the difference was slight (20%).

16
Item 3
This item was strictly related to easiness of access and usability.
In the overall, all the participants found using the wiki simple (80%
very simple and 20% quite simple).
Item 4 – multiple-choice
Participants placed the user-friendly factor and the collaborative
aspect as features they liked most by placing them on the same level
(60% respectively). Flexibility of time and having a dedicated space
followed with 20% each.

17
Item 5
Interestingly, the majority of the students believe that using a wiki
has encouraged them to write more often (in English) 60% while the
rest of them claimed that the difference was not as relevant (40%).
Item 6 – multiple-choice
This item is strictly related to preferences students have about
improving their writing; they placed using a notebook, writing e-mails
and using a wiki exactly at the same level (40% each). Surpisingly,
more common social networks were totally ignored.

18
Item 7
The purpose of this item is to identify the percentage of digital
immigrants participating to the project. Such information is particular
relevant to determine whether or not a wiki can actually be defined
as easily accessible by all potential users. The percentage appears
quite fairly distributed with 2 contributors who are definitely digital
immigrants (40%), 2 very likely to be digital immigrants (40%) and 1
digital native (20%).
Item 8
The average amount of time students spent using web tools outside
working hours resulted in an overwhelming twice a week (80%).

19
Item 9
Interestingly, most students claimed to use written English less than
1 hour a week (80%); such trend largely depends on the participants’
position at the company. Only one participant spends from 4 to 7
hours a week for this task and the next item will reveal the reason.
Item 10 multiple-choice
As previously assumed, most written tasks are related to business
activities. Writing e-mails resulted as the most frequent task (100%),
followed by, with equal percentages (40%); writing documents
related to work and interestingly, a social network popular for work
called LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com).

20
6. The ethical issues
The most evident ethical issue arising when operating in a web 2.0
learning environment is privacy.
In order to make the participants aware of what the project involved
and to protect them from unwanted release of personal data, prior to
the actual carrying out of the project, they had been provided with
the following items via e-mail:
• Explanation of the project, its purpose, what a wiki is and
how to use it
• Log-in data: pseudonymous username & password
• Informed consent for the release of data published on
the wiki for research purposes as well as anonymous
background information about their background
To ensure that each participant completely understood the
aforementioned points, the documents were provided in their L1:
Italian (See Appendix 1, 2 and 3).
In addition, similar information has also been published in English on
the wiki home page (http://ethicalenglish4all.wikispaces.com/). The
page also contains a list of rules which are commonly applied in class
and negotiated with the participants. Particular emphasis on political
correctness was given as students often tend to literally translate
directly from Italian to English and the result is likely to appear
prejudicial and misogynistic. Humanity and human kind for instance,
in Italy are still translated as man and men (l’uomo, gli uomini) and
generalisation about an individual or a child always require the
masculine form (!). Thus, my point is that in a Web 2.0 learning
environment it is not only necessary to protect the identities of the
participants but it is also fundamental to ensure that the content does
not, in any case, contain any offensive or discriminating words or
phrases. Such aspect should be considered particularly relevant in an
open source Web 2.0 setting where global viewing is something to be
expected as illustrated in the wiki usage statistics (see fig.3)
Fig. 3
Legend
IT = Italy
US = USA
A1= unknown proxies
DE= Germany

21
Finally, the entire research project has been conducted by considering
the guidelines outlined by the British Association for Applied
Linguistics (BAAL). As this project was set on a volunteer basis and
the students involved accomplished their tasks in their free time, no
extraneous personnel at the company were made aware of the
project.
7. Critical reflection on your redesign
There are some important aspects related to the carrying out of this
project which need to be highlithed to improve further evaluation in
this sense. First, as the participants agreed to collaborate to the
project on a volunteer basis, all activities had to be accomplished in
their free time. For this reason, the great majority of learners, even if
they initially showed an interest in the project, decided not to follow
it through. Moreover, the execution of the project coincided with their
holiday time so the original schedule had to be re-adjusted to suit
their needs. As a result, each activity remained open to contributions
much longer than previously planned.
In the overall, I was really impressed by the level of collaboration
shown by the participants; not only to help each other but also in
giving me continuous feedback via e-mail to let me know what they
thought was appropriate to do to improve the quality of the wiki (see
Appendix 4). It is interesting to notice that participants used the wiki
for the activities but preferred to use e-mails to let me know about
their personal feelings.
My reflection on implementing the wiki for future application is mainly
based on my students’ feedback as well as my own perception as
their “coordinator”. To render the wiki even more appealing for the
students, they should be encouraged to submit their own topic of
choice by, for instance, adding external links, uploading videos or
other interactive material through the widget option in the wiki. In
this way, the level of collaboration could even reach deeper level of
mutual understanding between teachers and learners.
Assessing web 2.0 tools is becoming a major concern in the digital
age. Educational researchers such as Greenhow et al. (2009), for
instance, call for a stronger research focus on Web 2.0 technologies
aimed at investigating learning potentialities as well as emerging
ethical issues related to Web 2.0 tools. Although further investigation
is still needed in this direction, there have been a growing number of
studies which have illustrated some interesting wiki application in
education. As an example, Kessler and Bigowsky (2010, p. 43),
reiterate the importance of emphasising collaboration rather than
competition; a concept initially introduced by Ware (2004). This point
is connected with wiki contributions which, cannot be evaluated

22
according to traditional standards but require new approaches as the
one investigated by Trentin (2008). What appears evident from the
study is that a wiki involves a great amount of autonomous learning
which, increases chances for learners to maintain, practice and
improve their communicative competency. The concept of developing
autonomous collaborative learning through the use of wikis has been
the main focus of Kessler and Bigowsky’s study (2010).
To summarise, the most important elements which have emerged
from this brief pilot study, illustrate that a wiki contributes to a higher
level of collaboration, the increase of confidence and the possibility to
have almost instant feedback without time constraints. Similar results
were also obtained by Su and Beaumont (2010) in a study evaluating
essential aspects of collaborative learning in higher education through
the use of wikis. Further evidence is also provided by another study
which focussed on students’ perception of a wiki involving 92
graduate students (Chang et al, 2010-2011). However, despite the
numerous positive aspects connected to using a wiki, it is necessary
to take into consideration its vulnerabilities. At first, vandalism and
other types of cyber attacks may appear as the most evident though,
as previously mentioned, there are also other ethical concerns which
should be tackled to avoid language which may result offensive to a
particular socio-cultural group. Particular importance should be given
to this aspect as the number of learners worldwide studying English
as a second language is continuously growing (Crystal, 2004), thus
universal guidelines should be provided to ensure, as far as possible,
the implementation of a democratically safe, multicultural Web 2.0
learning environment.

23
REFERENCES
Bakhtin M. M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination, University of Texas
Press Slavic series; no. I, Translation of Voprosy literalury i estetiki,
Austin, University of Texax Press
Chang Y. , Morales-Arroyob M. A., Thanc H., Tunc Z. and Wang Z.
2010-2011, Collaborative learning in wikis, Education for Information
28 (2010/2011) 291–303
Crystal D. (2004, 2nd edn) English as a Global Language, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press
Deleux G., Guattari F. (1980), A Thousand Plateaus, Translation by
Brian Massumi, London and New York, Continuum
Hall J. K. (2012, 2nd edn) Teaching and Researching Language and
Culture, Harlow, Pearson Education Limited
Kessler G. and Bikowski D. (2010) Developing collaborative
autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language
learning: attention to meaning among students in wiki space,
Computer Assisted Language Learning Vol. 23, No. 1, February 2010,
41–58
Kimmerle J., Moskaliuk J., Harrer A., & Cress U. (2010) Visualizing
co-evolution of individual and collective knowledge. Information,
Communication and Society, 13, 1099-1121.
Lund A., (2008) Wikis: a collective approach to language production,
ReCALL 20(1): 35-54. 2008 © European Association for Computer
Assisted Language Learning
OU E852, Unit 9, Video: Wikis in University Teaching and Learning -
Richard Buckland UNSW, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1-
8OOrBi0o, (last accessed 03/09/2012)
Su F. and Beaumont C. (2010) Evaluating the use of a wiki for
collaborative learning, Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, Vol. 47, No. 4, November 2010, 417–431
The British Association for Applied Linguistics (1994 – 2006),
Reccomendation on Good Practice in Applied Linguistics,
http://www.baal.org.uk/dox/goodpractice_full.pdf
(accessed on 20/05/2012)

24
Trentin G. (2009) Using a wiki to evaluate individual contribution
to a collaborative learning project, Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning 2009, 25, 43–55
Vygotsky L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher
pshychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.
Souberman, Eds.), Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press
Ware, P.D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student
perspectives on webbased discussions in the classroom, Computers
and Composition, 21(4), 451–468.
Sykes J. M., Oskoz A., Thorne S. L. (2008), Web 2.0, Synthetic
Immersive Environments, and Mobile Resources for Language
Education, CALICO Journal, 25(3), p-p 528-546

25
8. Appendixes
Appendix 1 – Project Explanation, its purpose and definition of a wiki

26
Translation of Appendix 1
Hello everyone,
I'm preparing a pilot project to improve written production in Business English
through the use of a so-called WIKI (such as wikipedia, which is a type of wiki) as
part of my Master's in Applied Linguistics for the Open University.
The course will likely start from:
June 1 to 15 July 2012 (subjected to change according to your availability).
At the beginning of each week, you will be given a topic on which you can write
your considerations.
The particularity of the wiki is that it uses the COLLABORATIVE LEARNING concept,
namely all participants contribute to whatever has been written with the possibility
to vary or modify whatever has been written by another colleague.
The purpose of the project is to verify, as hours spend in class are limited:
1. If collaborative learning effectively increases participation regarding written
production (writing).
2. If collaborative learning is efficacious to build-up self-confidence in writing skills.
The advantages for you are:
a. The possibility to practice your English for free with a final feedback on the
performance.
b. The possibility to acquire new skills regarding the use of a wiki (very easy and
intuitive)
I'd be deeply grateful if you were interested in the project. In a positive case, I
would like to ask you to let me know via e-mail as soon as possible.
Thank you and see you soon!
Appendix 2 – Personal Username and Password to access the WIKI

27
Appendix 3 – Sample of Informed Consent
Si informano tutti coloro che hanno partecipato al progetto di
Antonella Dagostino che la vostra identità verrà trattata in maniera
confidenziale e non verrà mai rivelata per alcun motivo. I dati raccolti
su base di anonimato relativi all’indagine potrebbero essere utilizzati
per scopi scientifici o educativi. Tuttavia, qualora la Open University o
chi per essa, necessitasse di visionare i documenti originali contenenti
i vostri dati identificativi sarà obbligata a rispettare la protezione della
privacy come previsto dalle leggi vigenti e per nessun motivo potrà
rilasciare alcuna informazione che possa far risalire alla vostra reale
identità.
Firma per accettazione
___________________
The present is to inform all those participating to Antonella Dagostino’
project that your identity will be treated confidentially and will not be
revealed for any reasons. The anonymous data collected related to the
investigation may be used for scientific or educational purposes.
However, if The Open University or other organisation acting on its
behalf, needed to view the original documents containing your identity
data, it will be obliged to comply with current laws to ensure that data
or information related to your identity cannot be released no matter
the reason.
To be signed for acceptance
_______________________
Appendix 4 – Sample of informal students’ feedback via e-mail

Wiki project 2012

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Wiki project 2012

Similar a Wiki project 2012 (20)

Más de Antonella Dagostino

Más de Antonella Dagostino (11)

Último

Último (20)

Wiki project 2012