Thing 7. Glad to know the origin now of the term! (I say we need a course field trip!)....
Update note: As I edit this, I must interject and pose this thought: The most important facet/component of a wiki is what I now have determined is its PERSONALITY!!! The personality consists of :
(1) How well the wiki is introducing itself (why does it exist?)
(2) How "neat" and "catchy" is its "dress" (appearance/attire appropriate for the occasion...whether jeans and a T-shirt or a formal tuxedo...just "catch my eye")
(3) Its easiness to be around (i.e., how easy you can navigate the links and components, how friendly and "listening" it seems...is there a sense of "the group"?); and
(4) Can it maintain my interest/"friendship" or "loyalty" by being unusual and helpful (not just another book report format), i.e., is it engaging after the "honeymoon" is over? Is there a depth of "personality" and character or is it "shallow"?
With this concept in mind... I think I may rethink my own wiki real soon!
My Thing 8 poses this question on my sandbox wiki--- See Beam Me Up, Scotty!
Now, on to what I had written for Thing 7 Task 1:
The wikis I have explored are :
The Holocaust Wiki Project
Schools in the Past and
The Flat Classroom Project
I seem to have chosen well, for I saw a significant variety of styles and complexities by viewing these three wikis. Let me start with "Schools in the Past". It was a very basic, "no thrills" wiki for younger children who interviewed older relatives and neighbors to ask about how schools had changed and then summarized and/or quoted them on the wiki. I admit I had fun glancing over them, but the organization and "stream of consciousness" style with which they appeared on the wiki didn't "catch" my interest too much. There was very little information on the wiki itself about the goals and objectives/learning outcomes or Essential Questions of the project. Perhaps this wasn't the goal of the teacher at the start. I also was distracted by the errors of grammar and spelling, but I think that creating the wiki was the goal of the teacher and not presentation to a larger audience. Interesting, because what attracted me to explore the wiki was the subject matter and the enormous potential for great detail and exploration, but it (this wiki) just didn't seem to fulfill my expectations (probably too high for that grade level, I grant you!) for the topic.
As to the Holocaust Wiki Project, it was moving emotionally, but not quite so moving from a technological point of view. There were no real clear (they may be there, but these are my first reactions and reflections as an outsider "glancing in" on a wiki) objectives...although the teacher made it clear that students would examine the personal struggles and questions they faced...that seemed measurable to me. The wiki I though was hard to "move around in"... causing me to lose some interest in it except that I was very persistent in doing so. There were a few pictures.
The students wrote, but mistakes were abundant! Made me wonder why they did not use Spell-Check on their work. The research background and links were great once I figured out how to get to them. Overall, a great "start" to a use of a wiki...moving in the right direction, but somehow not quite there yet...seemed to me more like they just "published" a flat book report or history project with little "wiki personality"...does that make sense to anyone besides me?
The other wiki brought me to see the "personality" of a wiki that inspired me to pursue the idea.
The Flat Classroom Project has a bit of it all...in fact....quite a lot of work went into creating and maintaining it (something I am not so sure I saw in the previous two wikis). Of course, it was started back in 2006. But there are video clips, abundant links, clearly stated project goals and Essential Questions, and from the minute you click on the wiki site...you are engaged with the personality (there I go again!) of the wiki itself!!! I can see that a higher standard (probably because the instructor was more knowledgeable about wikis) "introduces" the wiki, the materials and links to the left are well-organized (and there are many!)...and the purpose is clearly defined.
The spaces for each school across the world that was participating were fun to skim read, and overall "things" just seemed to "fall into place".
Those are my impressions!
Did create a wiki for me ... just for fun...it's Scottys (come visit me?)
Will create another on Sandbox soon I understand...
More to follow very soon...!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think that the "personality" of the wiki is the most important consideration to have when creating a wiki or a blog, next to or along with organization and ease of use. Without "personality," a blog becomes a journal. To me, a journal is a book written (normally by teenage girls) and that only the writer is meant to read. A blog is meant to be read and commented upon. Their is a similar concept with a wiki. A wiki is different from a web page, because a wiki can be added to by others. If a wiki has no contributors, it becomes a web page.
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly not the first time that I've read about the subject of personality and wikis. Given the flexibility of the tool, wikis can be whatever the originator wants them to be. I do feel the most engaging wikis are those which manage to pull me in aesthetically. Then again, if they're poor on content, it doesn't matter a whit, because that is what the wiki should boil down to in the end - content!
ReplyDeleteAnd Jessica has a great point. If a wiki doesn't have a collaborative element, then it's no different from a website. Many of my wikis are websites, but I do love the fact that I can "snap" and change a setting that will allow me to have contributing members who can build upon he foundation and enter into discussions on the wiki.
Oh, and I think the ability to spell check in wikispaces is a fairly new(ish) feature :)