Wiki or Word? Evaluating Tools for Collaborative Editing and Teamwork

Many college courses involve group work where teams of students are asked to create a report as the final result of a collaborative effort. The creation of such a shared document often causes students great trouble in coordinating the effort. In this paper we describe two approaches to supporting students in collaboratively creating and editing a report for an introductory course in information systems. One group of students used MS Word with Track Changes turned on combined with emailing the document between students. A second group was provided a Twiki site where they were able to create the report. Preliminary analysis shows that students found the Word and email combination more useful and easier to use than the wiki environment in completing the project. INTRODUCTION Wikis are web sites that allow many people to edit the site very easily. This has produced such stunning successes as Wikipedia and WikiWikiWeb, as well as wikis on every conceivable topic. Creating a new wiki is very simple, as several web sites offer basic wikis for free (including WikiSpaces, Wetpaint, and Wikia). The education community has also grabbed onto the idea of a wiki as a way to increase student engagement and collaboration within the classroom (Parker and Chao, 2007). Educators have found many different ways to incorporate the use of wikis in classes. Some of the common uses include creating a shared annotated bibliography of class readings; developing shared lecture notes; publishing syllabi, assignments, and handouts; as well as student collaborations on a shared document such as research papers, reports, etc. TASK TECHNOLOGY FIT Wikis are thought to be an important tool to support collaboration. One aspect of collaboration that wikis might support is the development of a paper by multiple authors to address some subject or problem. However, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that this new technology offers a significant advantage to the common practice of sending word processing documents between authors where each edits the document and then sends it on. Information systems research has developed two models to Dishaw, Eierman, Iversen, & Philip Wiki or Word? Proceedings of the Third Midwest United States Association for Information Systems, Eau Claire, WI May 23-24, 2008 assess the impact of a technology on the performance of a task and the utilization of the technology to perform the task. The first model is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) which is used to determine a potential user’s attitude toward using the technology based on the technology’s perceived usefulness and ease of use (Davis, 1985). The second model is Task Technology Fit (TTF) which is used to assess the perceived fit between a user’s task needs and the functionality provided by the technology (Goodhue, 1995; Goodhue and Thompson, 1995). Dishaw and Strong (Dishaw and Strong, 1999) combine these two models to develop a model with more explanatory power than either alone (Figure 1). Figure 1. Integrated TAM/TTF Model In this research we examine if there is a difference between two technologies with regard to the task of shared document development. The following hypotheses are based on the above model. The first hypothesis examines if there is a difference between wikis and word processing document exchange with regard to the factors in the integrated TAM/TTF model. If there is no difference, there is no reason to believe either technology is better than the other. H1: There is no difference between the two technologies. If there is a difference we need to examine what that difference is. The following three hypotheses examine this question. The first area to investigate is whether or not there was a difference in the perceived usefulness of the technology. Presumably, a technology that is perceived to be more useful will lead to more use and better outcomes. Dishaw, Eierman, Iversen, & Philip Wiki or Word? Proceedings of the Third Midwest United States Association for Information Systems, Eau Claire, WI May 23-24, 2008 H2: There is no difference between the two technologies in terms of perceived usefulness. The third hypothesis examines how easy users thought it was to use the technologies. Again, a technology that is easier to use will likely be used more often with better results. H3: There is no difference between the two technologies in terms of perceived ease of use. The final hypothesis focuses on the specific question of collaboration. Collaboration support is thought to be the primary advantage of a wiki over word processing software to create and edit documents by a group. H4: There is no difference between the two technologies in terms of the perceived effort associated with collaboration.