Madison, WI started a free bike program a number of years ago similar to what you described. Maybe it’s the difference between Madison and New York, but at the end of the first year, Madison had more bikes than they started with. People thought it was a great idea, so they painted their old bikes red and left them out for others to use. The program has changed now and requires a deposit, but it was a great example of how this project inspired people to give up their personal ownership for the greater good.

Wikis at their best can give that kind of inspiration too. It doesn’t always happen, of course, but the possibilities are very exciting.

I think of wikis as the “hippy” of all the read/write web tools. It’s all about everything being for free. If it’s free, can anyone own it? I remember seeing a news story on TV quite a while ago about this free bicycle program in NYC. You ride these donated bikes to wherever you need to go and leave it for someone else to use. The next person does the same, and ideally there would be bikes for everyone. Although I thought this was a wonderful idea, I was fascinated, I also thought it was a bit naïve. Ummm, did anyone take human nature into consideration? And, what if you were just running into the store for a quick minute only to find there was “no bike for you” when you returned? This story really stuck with me. Okay. So you have to have a certain set of expectations going into the whole bike thing, like do expect someone else to use it – maybe before you are finished. It’s allowed.

I know, I’m kind of rambly this morning, but mostly what I’m trying to say boils down to our ideas about ownership of information. A student said it best for me, “So, Ms. Morris, it’s like this information is the last person’s creation and then it will be my creation and someone else’s information.” Well, okay . . . I thought it was genius.

I really like what you said, Christy, about the necessary qualities of a wiki environment:

“1. A common goal
2. Trust in the other team members that they share that goal
3. Belief that everyone has something to contribute
4. Belief that no single person has all the right answers, and everyone can learn from each other”

I couldn’t agree more! For all of those things to happen, we have to change/suspend our idea of who owns the information. I do have to manage my students’ approach to this environment. We talk quite a bit about the whole idea of “peace, love, and Wikipedia.” They DO give credit to outside sources, we DO discuss plagiarism extensively, they do write at an academic level – while developing a slightly less formal tone, and they DO struggle with the subtleties. So DO I. I feel that helping them develop these skills is more important in this culture than essay writing (Don’t tell my Assoc. Dean I said that!) They are apprehensive at first. Good! I’d rather start with that level of interaction than complete disregard. Not to my surprise, they get it and embrace it pretty quickly – they aren’t as deeply mired down with the same hang-ups as those of us over 30. I’m just sayin’.

I think that kind of collaboration where people can edit each other’s work requires mutual trust. You have to trust that the people in your group are making edits for the overall shared goal of creating a good product. Your peers have to trust that your edits have the same goal in mind.

Also keep in mind that with the wiki, it’s very easy for the instructor (or anyone) to see the full history of the changes. Just look on the history tab for any page and select two versions to compare. Inserted text will be highlighted in green, deleted text in red. In terms of grading, this makes it very easy. If the concern is about who gets credit, the technology is very helpful–more helpful, in fact, than if you were looking at a group project in a face-to-face course.

But ultimately it sounds like your concern isn’t about grading but about the attitude and approach to the collaborative environment. For this to really work the way it should, I see four necessary things in the team:

1. A common goal
2. Trust in the other team members that they share that goal
3. Belief that everyone has something to contribute
4. Belief that no single person has all the right answers, and everyone can learn from each other

No technology is going to help you do collaborative work if you’re lacking those four things.

Imagine if you were working on a project as an individual that you submitted to your instructor repeatedly for feedback and improvements. If the instructor crossed out some of your words and made an improvement, would you feel uncomfortable with that? Would you be uncomfortable doing so as an instructor?

As a facilitator, you give feedback to other professionals on a daily basis. Editing other people’s work is similar, but the power structure is different. Instead of the “sage on the stage” being the one with all the right answers, everyone contributes their part of the “right answers.” It is a different power structure from the traditional teacher-centered classroom. Student-centered learning, especially in a course like BCE where it’s often student-led learning, can be a little disorienting at first.

Trust yourself and the value of your own contributions, and trust your peers. That’s how you get the collaborative relationships to work.

I am gaining some experience with wikis in PLS’s Building Online Environments class. The biggest issue for me is that I don’t feel comfortable changing the words of another professional. Working in a small group, we are all willing to do a section of it but there is not much revision and editing. What have your experiences been with that aspect of wikis?

Sarah