elearning papers special edition 2010

eLearning

Paperswww.elearningpapers.eu

2010

Special edition

Breaking down the silosTransforming education through innovation and technology

Imagining future Learning: Mapping major changes to education and training in 2025

The evolution of knowledge economies and innovation societies through learning

A new web 2.0 learning environment: Concept, implementation, evaluation

Networked Learning: A response to new challenges?

Special edition

eLearning Papers

www.elearningpapers.eu

eLearning PaperseLearning Papers is a digital publication created as part of the elearningeuropa.info portal. The portal is an initiative of the European Commission to promote the use of multimedia technologies and Internet at the service of education and training. The articles provide views regarding the current situation and e-learning trends in different contexts: schools, universities, companies, civil society and institutions. As such, the journal adds a new dimension to the exchange of information on e-learning in Europe and stimulates research. eLearning Papers provides authors with an opportunity to have their texts published throughout Europe. Through these articles, the journal promotes the use of ICT for lifelong learning in Europe.

eLearning Papers Special Edition 2010 edited by:

ISBN: 84-8294-664-1Muntaner 262, 3º, 08021 Barcelona (Spain)www.paueducation.com

Design: Mar Nieto

Phone: +34 933 670 [email protected]

Mission Statement

eLearning Papers aims to make innovative ideas and practices in the field of learning more visible by highlighting different perspectives involving the use of technology.

Legal notice and copyrightBy elearningeuropa.info and eLearning Papers.

The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on its behalf is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in the present publication. The European Commission is not responsible for the external web sites referred to in the present publication.

The texts published in this journal, unless otherwise indicated, are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivativeWorks 3.0 Unported licence. They may be copied, distributed and broadcast provided that the author and the e-journal that publishes them, eLearning Papers, are cited. Commercial use and derivative works are not permitted. The full licence can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Contents

Special edition

2010eLearning Papers

www.elearningpapers.eu

Breaking down the silosTransforming education through innovation and technology

Editorial Board ........................................................................................................4Guidelines for submissions ................................................................................................. 5

Editorial ...................................................................................................................6

In-depth ...................................................................................................................8Imagining future Learning: Mapping major changes to education and training in 2025 .............................................................................................................. 9

The evolution of knowledge economies and innovation societies through learning ................................................................................................. 24

A new web 2.0 learning environment: Concept, implementation, evaluation .............. 33

Networked Learning: A response to new challenges?..................................................... 45

From the fi eld ........................................................................................................56Playing with Science. Hands-on and High-Tech Learning in a Portuguese Kindergarten ............................................................................................ 57

Defi ning Quality. Hellenic Evaluation tool for School Internet Sites .............................. 59

Understanding the stakeholders. A key to the successful implementation of adult learning projects ....................................................................... 61

Interview ...............................................................................................................65The Editor’s Selection ..........................................................................................70

4

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Editorial Board

Peer-reviewers

Secretariat

Tapio Koskinen, www.elearningpapers.eu, Director of the Editorial Board, Head of R&D, Lifelong Learning, Institute Dipoli, Aalto University, Finland

Maruja Gutierrez-Diaz, European Commission, Advisor to the Director, Education and Culture, Belgium

Pierre-Antoine Ullmo, Director of P.A.U. Education

Antonio Bartolomé, Audiovisual Communication Professor, University of Barcelona, Spain

Claire Bélisle, CNRS Research Engineer, France

Jean Underwood, Professor of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, UK

Alfredo Soeiro, University of Porto, Portugal

Ana Landeta, Madrid open University, Spain

Anabela Mesquita, School of Accountancy and Administration of Porto, Portugal

Avgoustos Tsinakos, University of Kavala Institute of Technology, Greece

Axel Schwarz, Saxon Ministry of Social Affairs - Dresden, Germany

Barbara Jones, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research & PREST, UK

Bulent Cavas, International organization for Science and Technology Education, Turkey

Carlos Morales, Lock Haven University, US

Cengiz Hakan Aydin, open Education Faculty, Anadolu University, Turkey

Christopher Douce, Institute of Educational Technolgy, open University, UK

Claudia Panico, Università Telematica “Leonardo da Vinci” Torrevecchia Teatina, Italy

Eduardo de Gregorio-Godeo, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain

Emmanuel Bellengier, U&I Learning, France

Evangelos Marinos, University of Athens - Medical School, Greece

Giovanni Vincenti, Gruppo Vincenti, Italy

Giuliano Vivanet, University of Genoa, Italy

Guillaume Durin, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, France

Guzman Mancho, University of Lleida, Spain

Karl Wilbers, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Kay Mac Keogh, Dublin City University, Ireland

Lucilla Costra, Associazione Kelidon, Italy

Manfred Sargl, Universität der Bundeswehr, München and the University of Applied Sciences, Germany

Margari León, i2basque, Spain

Monia Sannia, University of York, UK

Nuno Garcia, Magazines, International Conferences and Scientifi c websites, Portugal

Pedro Maya Álvarez, Divulgación Dinámica S.L., Spain

Santiago Palacios Navarro, UPV / EHU, Spain

Paula Peres, Higher Institute of Accounting and Administration of Porto, ISCAP, Portugal

Jos Beishuizen, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Matty Smith, Programme Director, European Learning Industry Group (ELIG), UK

Nicolas Balacheff, Kaleidoscope Scientifi c Manager; Senior Scientist at CNRS (National Scientifi c Research Center), France

Lluís Tarín, www.elearningpapers.eu, Member of the Editorial Board, Spain

Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, Director of the European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning; University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Wojciech Zielinski, Chairman of the Board of MakoLab Ltd; Member of the Board of Association of Academic E-learning, Poland

Jimena Márquez, P.A.U. Education

http://www.elearningeuropa.info/directory/index.php?page=doc&doc_id=15652&doclng=6



http://www.elearningeuropa.info/directory/index.php?lng=fi&page=doc&doc_id=14121&doclng=6


http://ec.europa.eu/staffdir/plsql/gsys_fonct.properties?pLang=EN&pSernum=5381&pUnite=13986






http://www.paueducation.com/content/index.php?lang=en

5

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Guidelines for submissions

− �Language: Both articles and summaries must be in English. Authors are responsible for ensuring the correct use of English in their texts, and translations should be revised before submission. Please note that the journal gives strong preference to articles that are correctly translated in a legible manner.

− Title: Must effectively and creatively communicate the content of the article and may include a subtitle.

− Summary: This is not an executive summary but rather should communicate the key points and conclusions of the article to a large audience. It should be written in an attractive and accessible manner.

In-Depth summaries should not exceed 200 words. From the field summaries should not exceed 50 words.

− Key words: Authors should include up to 5 relevant key words.

− Conclusions: Special importance is given to the representation of the conclusions. Articles must go beyond telling about a research process and its methodology and provide an analysis of the findings. Conclusions should be clearly stated both in the summary and at the end of the article.

− Images: Please send high-resolution JPEG files of all images you wish to include in the article. Please include

captions for each image and indicate where they should be placed in the text.

− References: References must be accurately cited following international standards, please consult the online guidelines for more details: www.elearningpapers.eu/index.php?page=collab_guide

− Author profile: Author name, institution, position and email address must accompany each submission. For multiple authors, please specify the relationship of authors (ie, if a work is co-authored, if there is a principal author, etc.)

Authors are encouraged to consult the website for the most recent call for papers: www.elearningpapers.eu

In-Depth articles are full-length texts that discuss current findings from research or long-term studies. They should have the following characteristics:

− Academic focus: Articles must be original, scientifically accurate and informative, reporting on new developments and recently concluded projects.

− In good form editorially: Successful articles are clear and precise. They should develop their argument coherently and present a unity of thought.

− Length: Articles should range from 4,000 to 6,000 words.

In-depthFrom�the�field articles are synopses of current practices or studies taking place within Europe or beyond. They should have the following characteristics:

− Brief communications: These articles should summarise experiencies and practices in education, innovation and technology with a focus on the applied methodologies and impact evaluation.

− In good form editorially: Successful articles are clear and precise, they should concisely communicate the key points of the practice being discussed.

− Length: Should not exceed 1,200 words.

From the field

All�article�submissions�should�be�in�DOC�format�and�must�include�the�following:

Special editioneLearning


eLearning Papers is inspired by the creative role ICTs have in transforming education. After four years and 21 published issues, our journal has become a space for debate and plurality and we look forward to critically accompanying future developments in the field of learning and ICTs.

We have had the opportunity to meet with European researchers and practitioners and develop a fruitful dialogue with them. This has led to a new format and orientation of eLearning Papers, which are the result of a deep process of reflection. Every issue explores a specific theme within the field of learning innovation and new technologies and now the journal is organized to present a rigorous yet accessible portrait of each chosen topic.

With these improvements eLearning Papers will continue to serve as a meeting place for formal, informal and non-formal learning practitioners who wish to communicate the results of their academic work and practices to a diverse and relevant European audience.

For this inaugural issue, eLearning Papers focuses on innovation, networks and collaboration. We understand technology as a means to share, build, inspire and transform learning practices in our knowledge society, through continuous innovation.

Transforming education....

Editorial

shift that transforms communication, knowledge and learning.

By detailing promising advances and, in other instances, critically analysing progress in certain areas, the research presented here looks at our capacity to learn in different circumstances and elucidates the challenges and potential of ICT for improving our ability to develop as lifelong learners.

Today, to be successful, students and professionals need to continually enhance their knowledge and skills in order to address immediate problems, making them participants in a process of continuing vocational and professional development. This issue addresses this reality by looking at new learning strategies and technologies.

The section In-Depth presents full-length articles that discuss current findings from research or long-term studies. The articles provide four comprehensive views of innovation in learning. Imagining Future Learning by Slavi Stoyanov, Bert Hoogveld and Paul Krischener, and edited by Christine Redecker and Yves Punie, summarises the initial results from a study that maps major changes to education and training expected to occur by 2020-2030.

Authors Markku Markkula and Matti Sinko share their analysis of the pivotal and dynamic role learning has in shaping and fuelling true knowledge economies and innovation societies. Ingo Blees and Marc Rittberger present and discuss a new learning environment model based on web 2.0 applications.

Finally, Anne Steinert and Ulf-Daniel Ehlers ask: Are today’s new social challenges stimulating a demand for a new form of learning? They explore whether or not existing theories are still applicable to today’s learning realities.

In From�the�field, readers will encounter synopses of a selection of current practices or studies taking place within Europe or beyond. This issue’s

From the field includes Paula Carqueja’s results from her study that compared technological and hands-on methods for teaching science in Kindergarten in Portugal. From the University of the Aegean, Dr. Alivizos Sofos and Aikaterini Alexopoulou Alexopoulou relate the R&D process for the creation of a new tool to evaluate quality in school web sites.

Finally, the consortium from the Quality Assurance Network for Adult Learning Centres project (Ari-Matti Avunen, et al) reports on an approach for evaluating formal and informal learning in adult learning centres using stakeholder analysis (SHA).

Each eLearning Papers will also present an interview that will provide readers with insightful, original commentary from leading members of the field. This issue’s interview with Christine Redecker and Paul A. Kirschner, consortium members in the project “The Future of Learning: New Ways to Learn New Skills for Future Jobs” and an editor and author, respectively, of the report Mapping Major Changes to Education and Training in 2025, reveals the latest news in their ongoing research of upcoming learning trends.

Our Editor’s�Selection serves as a brief snapshot of the latest trends in education, innovation and technology by providing reviews of books, blogs, websites and commentary on recent news.

We would like to extend special thanks to all of our contributors whose work represents the research practices and themes our journal is interested in fostering and thank our readers for their continued enthusiasm and collaboration. We look forward to hearing from you!

Lluís TarinMember of the Editorial Board www.elearningpapers.eu

Tapio KoskinenDirector of the Editorial Board, eLearning Papers

With a growing amount of technology available, coupled with an increasingly diverse range of learning settings, new roles for both educators and learners are emerging. Teachers serve as guides who help define suitable paths and strategies for learning, leading pupils in a quest for locating information, questioning it, understanding it and applying it. Additionally, they are expected to be able to create their own course materials online, and master new skills related to online teaching and learning support.

Appropriating the educational environment and curriculum in this manner invites students to begin learning to learn. This implies changes in teacher and student relationships, as well as in the organisation and management of learning and teaching processes.

Here we discuss the basic idea of learning innovation, which is transforming our schools, institutions and learning centres; institutions centred principally in teaching are now becoming community-centred sites where everybody learns and collaborates in order to develop competences. This development points to a cultural



In-depthFostering analysis and discussion on Learning trends in Europe





eLearning environment: Concept,

eLearning environment: Concept, implementation, evaluation

eLearning implementation, evaluation

eLearning Networked Learning: A response to

eLearning Networked Learning: A response to new challenges?

eLearning new challenges?

PaperseLearning

PaperseLearning eLearning

www.elearningpapers.eueLearning


PaperseLearning

PaperseLearning www.elearningpapers.eueLearning

PaperseLearning 2010

In-d

epth

9

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s


Keywordslearner-centred approaches, cluster ratings, Group Concept Mapping

To determine how education and training policy can adequately prepare learners for life in tomorrow’s society, we must envisage what competences will be relevant and how they may be acquired from 2020-2030. This report presents the fi ndings of a structured and targeted expert consultation exercise, which aimed to identify, cluster and rate the main changes in education and training expected to occur over the next 20 years. The exercise employed group concept mapping methodology to generate, sort and rate more than 200 statements by a group of 13 experts. The objective of this study is to contribute to the development of imaginative visions and scenarios regarding the future of learning in order to support priority-setting for education, training and competency policies.

The emerging map of future changes to education and training was divided into a set of 12 thematic clusters, ranging from technological changes to shifting pedagogical concepts. Anticipated changes that rated particularly high in importance include learner-centred,�fl�exible�and�personalised�approaches�to�learning;�the�integration�of�learning�into�life�and�work;�and�the�development�and�implementation�of�innovative�pedagogical�concepts. When comparing the cluster ratings on importance and feasibility, it becomes clear that, while experts are optimistic about the development of technology-enhanced learning opportunities, scepticism prevails concerning the feasibility of implementing learner-centred approaches in formal education and, in general, the ability of formal education systems and institutions to keep pace with change and become more fl exible and dynamic.

AuthorsSlavi Stoyanov, Bert Hoogveld and Paul Kirschner

EditorsChristine Redecker and Yves PunieInstitute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS)[email protected]@ec.europa.eu

This article presents the results from a Group Concept Mapping (GCM) study conducted at the Open University of the Netherlands. Thirteen experts with backgrounds in technical or social sciences, mostly from academia and Europe, participated in the study. They were asked fi rst to generate ideas individually about the future of education. The resulting ideas were sorted into groups according to similarity in meaning and rated on two scales: importance and feasibility. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were applied to depict emerging structure in the data.

As acknowledged by the Europe 2020 strategy, a fundamental transformation in education and training will be necessary in order to adapt to the new skills and competences Europe will require to remain competitive, overcome the current economic crisis and grasp new opportunities. To determine how education and training policy can adequately prepare learners for life in tomorrow’s society, we must envisage what competences will be

Sum

mar

y

eLearning 2010






In-d

epth

10

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

relevant and how they may be acquired from 2020-2030.

This study was carried out within a larger research framework. It contributes to the Foresight on Learning, Innovation and Creativity (FORLIC) project entitled “The Future of Learning: new ways to learn new skills for future jobs”, launched in 2009 by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre) in collaboration with DG Education and Culture. This work continues and expands upon the work carried out from 2006-2008 on “Future Learning Spaces” (Punie et al., 2006, Punie & Ala-Mutka, 2007, Miller et al., 2008), and relates to ongoing work involving different target groups ranging from policy-makers and scientists to educators and learners which will be completed during 2010 and 2011.

The research process detected twelve thematic clusters. The participants in the focus group took part in an intensive process in which they were asked to gather, cluster and rate insights on major changes to education 20 years from now. For this study, 30 educational experts were invited to take part, 18 accepted the invitation and, finally, 13 participated in all three phases of the research process: idea�generation, sorting and rating.

The group of experts, with backgrounds in technical or social sciences, represented a balanced sample of educational expertise and professional orientation. Eleven experts came from European countries located in different geographical zones. Two experts represented institutions from the USA. Eleven experts were academics and two were from industry.

The clusters indicate changes in the nature of education, highlighting technological and structural innovation, trends towards professionalisation and life-long learning, and the evolution of our own social understanding of the meaning of education and school. What follows is a brief characterisation of each cluster. For additional statistics and data regarding the make-up of each category, we encourage readers to visit project website (ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/ pub.cfm?id=3419).

New coordinates, new paths: the 12 clustersTechnology�in�education: the title of this cluster strongly represents the content of the grouping. Statements in this cluster reflect a wide-held belief in the potential of technology to continue providing new tools and

learning environments in schools. Representative statements from this cluster include: practice will be captured through mobile devices and integrated with cloud-based portfolios; services on the Internet will serve as a study environment; augmented reality applications will be a major tool for learning.

Tools�and�services�enhancing�learning: includes references to the development of possible learning facilitators, in terms of tools, materials and services, and led to the following statements: the growing role of media for improving cognitive performance will support the learner with facts and simulation outcomes; drugs that enhance learning effectiveness will be widely (legally?) available and used; systems and services will be developed to allow mutual peer group learning among groups of interested learners.

Open�education�and�resources: gathers the possibilities surrounding open education, including its construction, as well as general access to free learning resources. Expert contributions garnered such statements as: open educational resources will become widely adopted; there will be Internet and access all around the globe, allowing learning to flow in all directions; text books will be replaced

In-d

epth

11

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

The clusters indicate changes in the nature of education, highlighting technological and structural innovation, trends towards professionalisation and life-long learning, and the evolution of our own social understanding of the meaning of education and school.

Figure 1. Cluster label map.

9Life-long learning

6Roles of institutions

8Roles of teacher

7Individual and profession driven education

10Formal education goes informal

11Individual and social nature of learning

5Globalisation of education

4Assessment, accreditation and qualifi cations

3Open education and resources

1Technology in education

2Tools and services enhancing learning

12Epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods

In-d

epth

12

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

by electronic multimedia publications; lecture capture will be omnipresent.

Assessment,�accreditation�and�qualifications: this title is also highly representative of its content. Statements included: different types of certifications will emerge that are not related to formal learning institutions; ways will be found to align assessment with how people actually learn and to make it more meaningful; we will recognise people for what they do rather than what qualifications they have.

Globalisation�of�education: encompasses trends related to the internationalisation of education in a broad sense, looking at education from a global rather than local perspective. Statements in this cluster included: all educational systems in Europe will be connected in a central system to identify the best students in order to support them regardless of their country of origin; in Europe (EU), many students will learn with and from each other through international collaboration; we will cease to rely on experts as the source of knowledge and curricula and will move towards quality, based on use and endorsement through Internet systems.

Role�of�institutions: another cluster whose label strongly represents its

content. Representative statements included: the main roles of educational institutions will be about providing learners with guidance on how to shape their personal learning trajectories, how to choose learning formats and resources needed, and how to assess their progress and outcomes; educational institutions will be reinvented as community knowledge centres serving both local communities and more widely dispersed learner groups; government-funded higher education will start to privatise.

Individual�and�profession-driven�education: speaks of individualisation, learner locus of control and professionalisation. Statements included: classmates will be matched on the basis of their knowledge, skills and preferred teaching and learning styles rather than their age; learners will choose their own learning paths; the responsibility for learning will be with an individual, not outsourced to an external institution.

Role�of�teacher: statements included: the natural role of the teacher will be that of a mediator of learning; teachers will need to develop coaching/mentoring skills; teachers will be natural learners; the majority of teachers will work online from home, either freelance or for an online educational organisation.

Life-long�learning: led to the following statements: learning will be integrated and absorbed into everyday activities, and it will become common for people to move between occupations, with learning being key to supporting such moves; students will choose to learn with people from their own network; professional networks will be one of the main means of education; we will have to develop skills to pick up relevant learning resources from an overwhelming wealth and variety of material and build our own learning trajectories around them.

Formal�education�goes�informal: addresses, as the title suggests, the shift of focus to, and the increasing role of, informal learning. The following statements exemplify the experts’ response on the topic: education will leave the classroom; There will be a lowering of the school leaving age as it is recognised that other contexts for learning may be more effective and more motivating than school; secondary education will shift towards creative authenticity and social-mindedness.

Individual�and�social�nature�of�learning: refers to cognitive and social aspects of learning. It led to such statements as: different learning styles and adapted teaching methods for the same courses will be available for individual and social learning; the

The very central position of the life-long learning cluster was an important result of the data sorting.

In-d

epth

13

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

learner will invest more in the cerebral aspects of learning: strategic, problem-oriented, situational and creative; learners will teach each other in the process of learning.

Epistemological�and�ontological�bases�of�pedagogical�methods: this cluster considers pedagogical methods and their theoretical and empirical foundations. Examples of statements include: social and cognitive processes and convergences will become part of the pedagogical methods; information will be manipulated [and] anchored in specific creativity techniques to facilitate synthesis and creativity; guided learning in a group will be complemented with learning in and from loosely knit networks; cross-curriculum (inter-disciplinary) project activities will dominate the course design; constructivism will still be there, but new paradigms will have arisen.

As we know from experience and practice, the issues represented by these clusters relate closely to one another. These relationships are represented by the borders between clusters on the map (Figure 1). Data sorting clearly reveals that there were more technology-oriented clusters, such as technology in education or tools and services enhancing learning. Importantly, the map provides information about how clusters relate and intersect with these

technological concerns. Open education and resources, for example, bridges the more technology-oriented clusters and the globalisation of education and assessment, accreditation and qualifications clusters. Technology facilitates the access of people to open education and resources. Open educational resources require adequate forms of assessment and accreditation on both national and international levels.

In our initial reading of the map, we can see that there were four clusters that suggest a shift of responsibility for education from institutions to individuals: role of teachers, role of institutions, individual and profession-driven education and formal education goes informal. In addition, there were two clusters, individual and social nature of learning and epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods, which were learning-oriented.

They included issues related to cognitive and social aspects of learning as a basis for the design of effective, efficient and appealing learning environments.

The very central position of the life-long learning cluster was an important result of the data sorting. This cluster was a connection point for all the other clusters. This implies that life-long learning processes are closely linked to issues related to technology, learning and teaching, and change in the role of institutions, teachers and learners.

Navigating between boundariesThe statements on which the clusters were based were generated in response to a focus or trigger statement that was given to each participant. The focus statement was as follows:

We all have the feeling that education in 20 years’ time will have to be different from education today. Education then will possibly deal with a new set of skills and competences, new curricula or types of curricula, innovative ways of learning and assessment, different roles for teachers and educational institutions, different impacts of technology, to mention just a few of the possible differences. We ask you to generate statements about your thoughts about education in 20 years, and to do this using the following format: One specific change in education in 20 years’ time will be that: …

In addition to the focus statement, experts received suggestions to better

In-d

epth

14

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

illustrate the type of outcomes that were expected. These examples were: learning will not be restricted to traditional educational institutions; teachers will become mediators between students, knowledge and technology; learning will be much more driven by Internet-based social networking; life-long learning will be the norm; class size will not matter; and learning methods will take into account cognitive structures and processes.

Each expert was prompted to think outside the box and not edit his/her ideas for fear of writing down something ridiculous. Furthermore, participants were reminded that GCM brainstorming differs from classical brainstorming, in that it is not an “anything goes” moment but rather a targeted exercise of eliciting all possible ideas and issues in response to the context and the focus statement.

Surprisingly, 203�unique�ideas�were�generated, a quantity that exceeds the number of ideas produced in any other GCM study. This effect may be explained by the sample of experts, the instructions provided and the openness of the topic (the future of learning) in general. Practice suggests that if the number of resulting ideas exceeds 150, a pre-selection by a small group of analysts is needed to assist with the sorting and rating (Trochim, 2007). However, we decided not to carry out

a pre-selection procedure. First, we believed that the participants in this study were experts in this domain, and we felt that it did not make much sense to invite experts and then do the job for them. Second, by avoiding pre-selection, we also hoped to minimise the effect of researcher bias on the validity of the study.

Connecting the dotsThe GCM methodology is a process that applies a structured, participative approach to facilitate groups of experts in reaching a consensus about a particular issue, e.g. characteristics of learning in 2020 (Kane, 2008; Quinlan, Hall, Tuzzio, McLaughlin, Wagner, Brown, & Yabroff, 2008; Stoyanov & Kirschner, 2004; Trochim, 1989; Wopereis, Kirschner, Paas, Stoyanov & Hendriks, 2005). GCM uses experts’ original intact respondent statements as units of analysis to help participants later sort and then quantitatively aggregate their contributions, so that structures in the data emerge. This research method, by its hybrid nature, can easily integrate any qualitative method for data collection and analysis, such as individual interviews, surveys, focus groups or the Delphi method.

After the individual brainstorming procedure, the experts were asked to

sort and rate a final list of all responses according to two idea-structuring activities, first based on meaning and then based on importance and feasibility. The instructions for sorting contained standard guidelines (Concept System, 2004). The participants’ initial action was to group all the statements by similarity in meaning, judging personal criteria and associations, thus creating their own cluster map. Having allocated each statement, the participants were then expected to pick any one group of statements and write a short phrase or title describing that group’s content.

The data from the participants’ idea generation, sorting and rating was subsequently aggregated and analysed by the project consortium. Specifically, multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to depict the emerging structure of the data. Each statement was placed on a map in accordance with the experts’ sorting, reflecting the proximity or distance of each statement to the others. Based on the position of the statements and the clusters proposed by the experts, the statements were finally clustered into 12 groups, which were labelled using titles suggested by the experts (Figure 1).

Input for the multidimensional scaling (MDS) generates a total

In-d

epth

15

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Surprisingly, 203 unique ideas were generated, a quantity that exceeds the number of ideas produced in any other GCM study. This effect may be explained by the sample of experts, the instructions provided and the openness of the topic.

Figure 2. The Future of Education point map resulting from MDS analysis

3

42 6516 13

82

87

4

14

28

30

10 80

49

180

108

193

133148

116114

192

175

115

181

7717

385166

166119

156

110

131

158 191 189

112 151

123

79

200

142

29

201

25

78

52

33

194

22

70

137

96134

117

85

165

187

14374

64

1726

100

15259 202

153

8 177

50

63

81

40

144

31

111

163

129

140

159

93

10713647

9

6

299

67

87 84

11388

145

184

72

11820

48147

57

149

69 102

68

37

43

55

135

141

124

122

109 176

196

120

24

15 5636

12

45

21

99 139

1749211127

184

161 188162

146145

172125

58

60 94

53

32

101

183

121

107190

182

128

178

185

35

167

90 157 13875

198170

38

73

15083

130

166

132203

9834

105

1

126

27

154

16862

103

195

164

7661

179173

4418

4198

23

54

957

5

171186189 180

162

19

In-d

epth

16

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

square similarity matrix, based on the outcomes of the participants’ sorting. The methodology transforms the similarity matrix into a map depicted as a coordinated matrix. From the coordinates, MDS can compute the distances between all pairs of statements (points) and show this as a graph of distances between points. Figure 2 shows the results of the MDS analysis performed on the data collected, where each point represents one of the 203 statements generated. The closer the statements are to each other, the more people identified these statements as being related, pointing to similarities in their meaning.

It should be noted that FORLIC is the first foresight study to employ GCM. Predicting the future of education with this method brings more complexity to the data and perhaps increases the variability in the way people group statements. However, one may question whether the point map actually represents the original similarity input matrix. The extent to which each of the distances between the statements on the map deviates from the values of the total similarity matrix, which is used as input to the map, is measured with the stress index (Kruskal & Wish, 1978). In principle, the lower the value of the stress index, the better the overall fit between the map and the input matrix.

A meta-analytical study across a broad range of concept mapping projects indicated that around 95% of concept mapping projects would produce a stress index value ranging between 0.205 and 0.365. The stress value of the FORLIC project GCM study is 0.355, falling within the expected range.

The hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) applies Ward’s agglomerative algorithm and uses the values of the coordinates of the two-dimensional MDS to partition the statements on the map in areas that are contiguous but do not overlap (Trochim, 2007). Ward’s hierarchical cluster analysis uses the coordinate values of the MDS, rather than the similarity matrix, and it was chosen because it is more adept than other hierarchical cluster analyses at interpreting distance data. This is especially useful when deciding on the number of clusters.

The procedure for determining the number of clusters in the FORLIC GCM applies the heuristic known as 20-to-5, which is based on the fact that most of the participants in GCM projects make between five and 20 clusters. We began with the 20-cluster solution, checking at each step whether the solution from the merging of clusters made sense, until we arrived at the five-cluster solution.

We recorded all our judgements (“yes” or “no”) about the merging of clusters and, after finishing the procedure, we looked only at the few “yes” judgements for a deeper analysis of the cluster content.

To come to a decision, we also looked at the bridging/anchoring values of the statement in a particular cluster. The bridging/anchoring statistics have a value between 0 and 1. A low bridging/anchoring value means that more people have grouped the statement together with others in its vicinity. Statements with a low bridging/anchoring value represent the meaning of a particular cluster’s content better than those with a higher value. This analysis determined that a 12-cluster solution fits the FORLIC data in the best possible way. Figure 3 presents this solution.

In addition to determining the clusters, we tried to identify a label that would best reflect the content of each particular cluster. We applied two criteria: (a) statements with a low bridging/anchoring value represent the content of a cluster better than statements with a high bridging value;

In-d

epth

17

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Figure 3. The 12 cluster solution

3

42 6516 13

82

87

4

14

28

30

10 80

49

180

108

193

133148

116114

192

175

115

181

7717

385166

166119

156

110

131

158 191 189

112 151

123

79

200

142

29

201

25

78

52

33

194

22

70

137

96134

117

85

165

187

14374

64

1726

100

15259 202

153

8 177

50

63

81

40

144

31

111

163

129

140

159

93

10713647

9

6

299

67

87 84

11388

145

184

72

11820

48147

57

149

69 102

68

37

43

55

135

141

124

122

109 176

196

120

24

15 5636

12

45

21

99 139

1749211127

184

161 188162

146145

172125

58

60 94

53

32

101

183

121

107190

182

128

178

185

35

167

90 157 13875

198170

38

73

15083

130

166

132203

9834

105

1

126

27

154

16862

103

195

164

7661

179173

4418

4198

23

54

957

5

171186189 180

162

19

In-d

epth

18

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Figures four and five represent the outcome of this rating process. In these diagrams, each cluster is shown to have between one and five layers, these layers represent the average score experts gave the cluster during the rating exercise.

Figure 4. Cluster rating map on importance

9Life-long learning


8Roles of teacher

7Individual

and profession

driven education




4Assessment,

accreditation and qualifications




12Epistemological and ontological

bases of pedagogical

methods

In-d

epth

19

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Figure 5. Cluster rating map on feasibility

9Life-long learning


8Roles of teacher

7Individual and profession driven education




4Assessment, accreditation and qualifications




12Epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods

In-d

epth

20

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

and (b) the labels originally proposed by experts.

Priorities and perspectiveOnce clusters were determined, participants rated them according to which ideas about the future of education were deemed important and which were considered feasible to achieve in 20 years’ time. During this final stage, experts were asked to rate the statements on a scale of one to five, and it was made clear that the emphasis should be on relative rather than absolute rating. The instructions prompted the experts to use the full range of ratings values (i.e. one through to five) in order to avoid the participants considering all ideas equally important because they were generated by experts. Figures four and five represent the outcome of this rating process. In these diagrams, each cluster is shown to have between one and five layers, these layers represent the average score experts gave the cluster during the rating exercise. Specific numerical values for each layer are listed in the diagram Key. What emerged from this sorting was an overarching vision that the most important innovations will be the most difficult to achieve.

Generally speaking, the learning-related clusters scored higher in importance than the technology-oriented clusters. The individual and social nature of learning and individual and profession driven education clusters got the highest score in importance (it is shown with 5 layers in the diagram, Figure 4). The life-long learning, epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods and formal education goes informal clusters all had only one layer less. The participants in the study deemed the technology in education and open education and resources clusters least important. One probable explanation for this result is that the participants viewed technology and open education as merely means for learning. Technology alone is neither the problem nor the solution for education and training, but a good understanding of the cognitive and social aspects of learning is a basis for designing effective learning environments and materials.

The cluster map showing their feasibility (Figure 5), on the other hand, clearly shows that the technology-oriented clusters (technology in education, open education and resources and tools and services enhancing learning) were seen as easy to achieve. However, the more learning-oriented clusters,

such as informal learning, self-directed learning, personalisation and professionalisation of education and training were seen as difficult to implement. The results from the feasibility ratings also seem to suggest that it is easier to understand learning than to use this knowledge to design learning environments (individual and social nature of learning had three layers; epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods had two).

The ladder graph in Figure 6 provides a visual comparison of the clusters. One side shows how each cluster rated on importance, while the other represents a cluster’s perceived feasibility in terms of achievement in 20 years’ time. Interestingly, there was a very weak relationship between the two values, and the clusters deemed important were not deemed feasible. The open education and resources, technology in education, individual and social aspects of learning and formal education goes informal clusters had the largest margins in scores on the two scales. There were relatively small differences in the scores of clusters such as life-long learning, role of teacher, and assessment, accreditation and qualification.

In terms of making this data useful in a real way, our assumption is that statements that score high in both

The learning-related clusters scored higher in importance than the technology-oriented clusters.

In-d

epth

21

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

importance and feasibility should be our starting point when planning the implementation of changes in education and training. Following this logic, a specific analysis comparing the statements on importance and

feasibility within each cluster was developed and deemed the “go-zone”. A go-zone is a bivariate graph that maps the average ratings for the importance and feasibility of each statement per cluster. The graph is

divided into quadrants based on the mean rating values of importance and feasibility. The upper right quadrant represents issues that are above average on both variables (very important and very feasible). Figure 7 is an example

Formal education goes informal


Open education and resources

Tools and services enhancing learning

Technology in education

Life-long learning

Assessment, accreditation and qualifications

Individual and profession driven education

Roles of teacher

Roles of institutions

Epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods

Globalisation of education

Individual and social nature of learning


Individual and social nature of learning

Individual and profession driven education


Life-long learning

Epistemological and ontological bases of pedagogical methods

Tools and services enhancing learning

Assessment, accreditation and qualifications

Globalisation of education

Roles of institutions

Roles of teacher

Open education and resources

Technology in education

Importance Feasibility

Figure 6. Thematic clusters and their importance and feasibility ratings on a scale from 1 (high) to 5 (low)

In-d

epth

22

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

of a go-zone comparing the statements in the life-long learning cluster on importance and feasibility.

The statements in the upper-right quadrant are rated as both important and feasible. For this cluster, the statements in this quadrant are: open learning through the Internet will become common (176); the workplace will become a major context for learning (25); students will combine working and learning (194); university students will attend courses within their working schedule (55); we will have to develop skills for picking up relevant learning resources from what is abundantly available and build our own learning trajectories around them (29); the learning environment will change throughout one’s lifetime, from school to workplace and home (124); “life-long learning will be natural (120); and education and learning will go on throughout life, from the cradle to the grave, so to speak, from preschool to old age (135).

The clusters with the most visible orientation on the upper-right side of the go-zone graphics are individual and social nature of learning and individual and profession-driven education. In contrast, globalisation of education and role of teacher each have only one statement

in the upper-right quadrant. The lowest correlation between importance and feasibility can be found in the assessment, accreditation and qualification (r = .07), life-long learning (r = .08), and role of teacher (r = -.09) clusters. Overall, statements located in the upper-right quadrants of the go-zones made up about 25% of the total ideas generated. Annex 4, available online, lists all the statements classified in this manner.

Inspiring debateGroup Concept Mapping within the FROLIC project proved to be an effective and efficient approach for generating an initial tentative landscape of future learning strategies and pathways. The data have outlined major changes to education and training expected in the next 10-20 years, indicating the relationships that different trends share with one another and revealing initial insight into the importance and feasibility of some of the more salient foreseen changes.

Our experience has led us to conclude that employing the GCM method was not only appealing to participants, but also served as a valuable tool for data collection, aggregation and analysis.

The maps that emerge from this analysis illustrate a vision of future changes ranging from technological developments to shifting pedagogical concepts.

According to experts, anticipated changes that rate particularly high in importance include learner-centred, flexible and personalised approaches to learning; the integration of learning into life and work; and the development and implementation of innovative pedagogical concepts. When comparing ratings regarding the importance and feasibility of perceived changes, it becomes clear that, while experts are optimistic about the development of technology-enhanced learning opportunities, scepticism prevails concerning the implementation of learner-centred approaches in formal education and, in general, there is doubt about the ability of formal education systems and institutions to keep pace with change and become more flexible and dynamic.

The results from this GCM study lay the empirical foundations for the Future of Learning project (is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/ForCiel.html), and they will be elaborated

Figure 7. Life-long learning go-zone

70 52

19631 78

22

46109

79

33

r = .08

3.84 4.73

Importance

Life-long learningFe

asib

ility

2.272.18

3.67

4.82

122

124

176 25

12029135

43142

141

200

201

19455

In-d

epth

23

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Concept System 4 [Computer Software]. (2010). Concept System, Inc. Ithaca, N.Y.

Kane, M. (2008). Engaging stakeholders to develop a research agenda for healthy aging. Concept System, Inc.

Miller, R., H. Shapiro & K. E. Hilding-Hamann (2008). School’s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in 2020: An Imagining Exercise on the Future of Learning. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 23532 EN. Seville: European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf

Punie, Y., Cabrera, M., Bogdanowicz, M., Zinnbauer, D., Navajas, E. (2006). The Future of ICT and Learning in the Knowledge Society. Report on a Joint DG JRC/IPTS-DG EAC Workshop held in Seville, 20-21 October 2005. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 22218 EN. Seville: European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Available at: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22218en.pdf

Punie, Y. and Ala-Mutka, K. (2007) Future Learning Spaces: New Ways of Learning and New Digital Competences to Learn. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 210-225.

Quinlan, K., Hall, K., Tuzzio, L., McLaughlin, W., Wagner, E., Brown, M., & Yabroff, R. (2008). Identifying Research Priorities for the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Research Network. Concept System, Inc.

Stoyanov, S. & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). Expert concept mapping method for defining the characteristics of adaptive e-learning: ALFANET project case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 2, 41–56.

Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning 12, 1–16.

Wopereis, I., Kirschner, P. A., Paas, F., Stoyanov, S., & Hendriks, M. (2005). Failure and success factors of educational ICT projects: a group concept mapping approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 681–684.

References

upon as the research progresses. Given the nature of the data collection and analysis, the emerging landscape provided by the data can only serve as a starting point for further discussion.

The main value of the findings lies in their ability to inspire debate within the field and highlight themes and issues that could be of particular relevance and importance for stakeholders

involved in shaping the future of learning. We therefore hope that the results are considered carefully when envisaging and addressing imminent learning needs and strategies.

Read more

www.elearningeuropa.info/2025

In-d

epth

24

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s


Keywordsinnovation strategy, learning environment, knowledge society, systemic innovation

This article describes and analyses the pivotal and dynamic role of learning in shaping and fuelling the metamorphosis of current post-industrial societies and economies into true knowledge economies and innovation societies. We start by contrasting two contemporary expert views in Europe on the role of learning in emerging innovation societies and then we reflect on these views. To gather momentum, we look back at a few classics of modern work-based learning theory to find arguments that will show us promising ways forward. We base our discussion on contemporary debates as well as on our vast experience in tackling the challenges of developing complex interfaces and joint learning environments between academia and the work place.

Globalisation has made systems intelligence a key factor of success, and working life will experience a marked shift towards an emphasis on new, visionary knowledge creation. We attempt to address the full range of issues, from generic, global traits and trends to a specific training concept piloted by a university outreach programme. Our main concern is that the decisive importance of learning as the vehicle for pulling contemporary societies out of the current crisis has been identified but not yet fully recognised by policy-makers, whose mindsets are constrained by past policies and beliefs. We suggest that a departure from traditional thinking is necessary in order to equip emerging knowledge economies with the mastery of systemic innovation.

Markku Markkula and Matti SinkoAalto [email protected]@tkk.fi

IntroductionThe world is currently experiencing the most severe economic crisis since the depression of the 1930’s. At the same time, the disastrous impact of global warming on the economy is gathering momentum. These clouds on the horizon darken our future prospects. At the same time, these major challenges may prevent us from seeing other significant trends that are also having an impact on living conditions in post-modern societies and emerging knowledge economies. This article aims to address a number of such issues, particularly those related to learning, which have perhaps been temporarily overshadowed by the current economic turmoil. There are interesting and important technological, pedagogical and social innovations which should be elaborated in order to harness innovation systems and thereby foster creativity in tackling the challenges of reorganising our economies and social orders. The decision taken in Europe to dedicate this year to innovation and creativity may be timelier than one might think.

Sum

mar

y



In-d

epth

25

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

We approach the topic first through an important recent European report published by IPTS1. We then juxtapose this report against a recent national innovation strategy adopted in Europe. We have chosen for this the Finnish Government’s Communication to the Parliament on Finland’s National Innovation Strategy2. We will reflect on these contributions and compare some selected features. The decision to focus on a national perspective might be criticised as anachronistic in our increasingly global economy, but it nevertheless allows us to draw a schematic presentation of the complexity of the dependencies that impact innovation processes. This approach will help demonstrate and test some of the important dimensions and assumptions about societal traits and dynamics laid out in the IPTS report. We have chosen Finland as a case study for obvious reasons: because we know it best, but also because Finland has been one of the quickest off the mark in the field of innovation policy development, and as one of the hot spots of the innovation world, it has something relevant to offer to a wider audience3. Finally, we try to

penetrate into the internal dynamics of learning systems and highlight some prominent elements, again using a Finnish case as an example.

Characteristics and dynamics of an innovative knowledge societyAn interesting forecasting exercise for mapping the complex relationship between emerging innovation societies and learning systems has been undertaken recently by the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Miller et al. (2008) applied a methodology which aimed to identify the characteristics of future learning spaces (LS) framed by the future learning-intensive society (LIS). The resulting construct is a scenario of how society might function in 2020 with open learning as the core. In the LIS scenario, LS are “the next school”. The scenario is based on the assumption that the now-wavering mass production and mass consumption of current societies no longer prevail, or as they put it:

“... the crucial moment in industrial society when the entrepreneur or engineer or designer comes up with an idea that can then be implemented by taking advantage of economies of scale is no longer central. The aims and organization of wealth creation no longer take on the form of a pyramid or hierarchy, with the genius who generates new ideas and the technocrat manager who implements them occupying the top floor, while down below at end of the chain of command is the “front-line” worker ... Everyone is the inventor and implementer of his or her own designs, the unique, personalized set of artefacts, services, and experiences. As a result, in the Learning-intensive Society there is a profound difference when compared to industrial society in the relationship of knowledge to production or, in more general terms, the activities that (re)create daily life.” (p. 35)

This scenario is then contrasted with the current policy assumptions about LIS, thus providing food for the policy debate on how to cope with the innumerable stumbling blocks on the way towards full-scale implementation of the LIS-LS.

The Finnish strategy proposal4 drafted by the innovation task force set up by

1 Miller, R. Shapiro, H. and Hilding-Hamann, K.E., 2008. School’s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in 2020: An Imagining Exercise on the Future of Learning. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf

2 www.tem.fi/files/21010/National_Innovation_Strategy_March_2009.pdf 3 Kao, J.,2009. Tapping the World’s Innovation Hot Spots. Harvard Business Review, 87 (3), 109-114.4 Proposal for Finland’s National Innovation Strategy 2008. www.innovaatiostrategia.fi/files/download/

Nationalinnovationstrategy_EN-20080704.pdf

In-d

epth

26

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

the government, when considered in conjunction with the strategic vision put forward by the IPTS, provides an interesting opportunity to view the issue of enhancing innovation in the light of both a pan-European and a national perspective. The IPTS report’s definition of LIS-LS is akin to the learning environments (LE) proposed in the Finnish Innovation Strategy, but it has been free to stretch its intellectual wings much further than the Finnish strategy group, which seems to have comprised experts more closely connected to the realities of policy-making. Perhaps that is the reason why the IPTS report takes a more critical stance regarding “yoking education to the idea of ‘national competitiveness’ ... in the open, trusted and connected context that makes LS work, the imperatives that seemed so urgent in 2008 ... have receded into an old memory.” (p. 36)

In the IPTS’s LIS scenario of 2020, both old, industrial-style learning and the notion of national competitiveness are declared “passé”. The argumentation runs as follows:

“... it is widely understood that nations are not firms and a successful nation does not succeed by being a better, more efficient, cost competitive, profitable ‘firm’ than another country, but by creating the conditions for local, unique creation. In the LIS, the old industrial forms of competition around product market innovation and efficiency are

marginal, since output is not standardized but unique. In the LIS of 2020, the largest share of ‘wealth’ creation is sourced locally from personal creativity – which, once again, is not a technocratic skill. Certainly, vestiges of the old forms of product market and investment competition remain, but such activities are only pertinent to a thin layer of production that is necessary but non-central in terms of its share of value, time, and lifestyle ...” (p. 36)

“From the perspective of learning, the two most marked contrasts between the vision of Learning Spaces in a Learning-intensive Society and the current framework for learning, are (a) the abandonment of the technocratic, hierarchical and exclusive approach to education and skill achievement, and (b) the marginalization of institutionalized learning.” (p. vii)

The authors of the Finnish report seem to think along similar lines about the need for new modalities for defining production and consumption, and are ready to reject the old-fashioned paradigm of learning, but still stick firmly to the mantra of the supremacy of national competitiveness as the overarching criterion for success. On the other hand, the IPTS report’s vision of the primacy of local sourcing in wealth creation leaves plenty of room for debate on the plausible prerequisites and interpretations regarding feasible implementation. Finland has repeatedly received top scores in the PISA

studies of lower secondary educational achievements. Such success is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it does not necessarily encourage one to echo the critical comments of institutional school education, as the IPTS report does. On the other hand, it allows Finnish policy-makers to consider carefully, without resorting to panic, the potential as well as the limitations of reforming the system without actually abandoning it.

Nevertheless, the summary of the IPTS report on LIS-LS fits in perfectly with the Finnish Innovation strategy:

“... the ‘bottom line’ is that a rich new learning framework can be detected in the ‘learning-intensive society’ that characterizes Europe in 2020. This framework or new infrastructure of learning has LS at its centre and is the main objective of institutional enabling policies. These LS are multi-dimensional loci for learning in all its forms: intangible and tangible, experiential and reflective, individual and collective. LS are the nexus, the crossroads of all strands of learning – both the stock of what someone knows and the flow of action that alters what they know, both in hierarchical terms judged by a third-party standard and in heterarchical terms that are self-referential, complex and transparent.” (p. 38)

The Finnish strategy proposal is based on four essential choices:

In-d

epth

27

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

1.��Innovation�activity�in�a�world�without�borders: In order to join and position itself in global competence and value networks, Finland must actively participate and exert influence and be internationally mobile and attractive.

2.��Demand�and�user�orientation:�Demand-driven innovation, paying attention to the needs of customers, consumers and citizens in the operations of the public and private sector alike, requires a market with incentives and shared innovation processes between users and developers.

3.��Innovative�individuals�and�communities: Individuals and close innovation communities play a key role in innovation processes. The ability of individuals and entrepreneurs to innovate and the presence of incentives are critical factors for future success.

4.��Systemic�approach: Exploitation of the results of innovation activities also require broad-based development activities aimed at structural renewal and determined management of change.

The first choice contradicts the IPTS report’s post-nationalistic credo, but the remaining three are surprisingly close to the views expressed in the IPTS report.

Discussing the systemic role of learning environments in the society of the future We think that the Finnish strategy should be pushed yet another step towards the European vision outlined in the IPTS report. As Markkula has suggested5, the pivotal organising concept in the Finnish innovation ecology should be learning environments (LE). LE are seen as the creative dynamos that make the Finnish innovation system tick. There are a myriad of learning environments in a country; many are national, many local, and an increasing number are well-connected and globally networked. Some of them need to be big enough (mega-level) to be able to mobilise and accelerate the frequency of quality innovations to the levels boosting the economy. What is important to note is that LE are seen in this enhanced innovation model being proposed in Finland as being so fundamental to innovation that they are actually conceived as the very spaces where innovation creation and development take place.

To be viable, LE need to be embedded in an innovation ecology capable of feeding in and mediating the realities and modalities of the surrounding world. The

intermediary mechanisms and services need to be organised and tuned in such a way that they optimise the interplay between LE and the organisations surrounding and supporting them (see Figure 1).

LE can be seen as a concept very close to the LS defined in the IPTS report. The development taking place at the work place is decisive. As suggested in Figure 1, LE is the gravity creating the impact and keeping the various impact factors in their orbits.

The core success factor is the systemic approach revealing the underlying concepts and processes. ICT enables the development of procedures as well as indicators which can be used to enhance the ability of organisational work cultures to share, evaluate and reward achievements in a result-oriented, sustainable manner.

ICT enables the emerging work culture to detach itself from traditional, function-based management and move towards collaboration, co-operation and co-creation with shared, parallel processes. Gains from developing processes can be significant, but the gains that can be achieved through the creation of a new work culture of

What is important to note is that LE are seen in this enhanced innovation model being proposed in Finland as being so fundamental to innovation that they are actually conceived as the very spaces where innovation creation and development take place.

5 Markkula, M., 2009. Unpublished Aalto university discussion paper.

In-d

epth

28

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

National Innovation Strategy of Finland 2008value networking can be gigantic. For improved leadership and management, it is necessary to orchestrate work inputs, not only within one’s own organisation, but also by developing processes and networks with strategic partners. When well-rehearsed, a process-orientated operational model nourishes a working environment inclined to continuing improvement. The ultimate aim would be a systemisation of professional development anchored to the work place’s human and social capital, as well as a relational capital that harnesses external resources for the organisation. Progress in this direction will make the organisation more resilient and expedient. The importance of conducive knowledge management is epitomised.

Attaining these goals calls for emphasising the learning taking place in work places and capitalising on concepts like innovative milieus, creative tension and developer networks. Different players in the value network connect their processes to the value-adding chains. Technical integration alone will not do. Instead, genuine compatibility is required, as well as an understanding of the kind of inter-personal knowledge that must be communicated between people and transferred within knowledge systems. This calls for accuracy in documenting the processes and interfaces of value networks. Figure 1. Renewed Finnish Innovation Strategy

“National Innovation Bedrock”

LearningEnvironment

Finland’sAttractiveness

Finnish R&HE System

Competitive Incentives

Management Training

Growth Entrepreneurship

National Ensemble of Services

Pioneer of Systemic Reforms

Regional Centres of Innovation

Implementing Innovation

Policy

In-d

epth

29

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

How LE themselves can be optimised will be discussed in the subsequent chapters.

Enriching our understanding of the social and creative nature of learningOur understanding of learning has advanced greatly in recent years, not only through a deeper understanding of how individuals learn, but in relation to innovation, and particularly with regards to how work organisations are able to renew their processes, enhance their capacity to learn and acquire, accumulate and create knowledge. Interesting new theoretical approaches have been developed. For example, the KP-Lab project6 researches how knowledge creation takes place in expert organisations seeking to solve problems by creating new artefacts. In the knowledge creation process, learning is seen as neither monological nor dialogical, but as even more complex: trialogical7. Attention is then given to the specific modalities and processes surrounding how learning discourse changes when the task of learners or designers is to create new artefacts (texts, designs, products or services), as is typically the case in schools or R&D

6 Knowledge practices laboratory is a large EU project funded by the 6th Framework IST programme; see www.kp-lab.org 2007.7 Paavola, S. Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen, K., 2004. Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational

Research, 74 (4), 557–576.8 FinnSight 2015 - Science and Technology in Finland in the 2010s, a joint foresight project of the Academy of Finland and Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency

for Technology and Innovation. The project was carried out in 2005-2006. www.finnsight2015.fi/9 Aalto University is named after the renowned Finnish architect Alvar Aalto, who was an alumnus of one of the universities to be merged, the Helsinki Universi-ty of Technology (TKK). The other two are the Helsink University of Art and Design and the Helsinki School of Economics. www.aaltouniversity.info

10 www.aaltoyliopisto.info/en/news/funding-to-aalto-university-s-aivoaalto-research-project

The inherent structure of knowledge-intensive work is by and large changing from excessive planning towards iterative experimentation characterised by working together, agility and joint spurs towards the goal.

divisions of companies, and in work places in general.

It is, however, necessary to take into account the changing nature of expert work, which is increasingly organised through professional networks and exploits technologies developed for such communication to facilitate the collaboration of professional communities. A paradigm shift is taking place from so-called “groupware” and “learning management systems” to wider and more flexible self-organising environments, generically labelled “social software” and “web 2.0 tools”.

The inherent structure of knowledge-intensive work is by and large changing from excessive planning towards iterative experimentation characterised by working together, agility and joint spurs towards the goal. The “scrum” method, fashionable in software development, is now migrating to other fields of the knowledge economy. This trait is perhaps manifesting a more fundamental paradigm shift in the technology sector, revealing a foresight that deduces the rationale for technology policy-making from the notion of human interaction as the foundation for welfare.8 For human interaction to be fully developed, learning must be ubiquitous and lifelong.

A prime example of this kind of development, and a very concrete one

as well, is the whole process of creating a completely new type of university in Finland through the merging of three universities into Aalto University9. Funding has just been granted for its very first large-scale research project: “aivoAALTO”. This project will address social interaction using brain visualising methods, research on decision-making (neuroeconomics) and the impact of film on human mind (neurocinematics), thus fully exploiting the unique expertise of each of the three universities10.

“ Ba” – learning and working together

Concepts, processes and environments building the foundation for deeper collaboration are the prerequisites for innovativeness. The desired developments can be achieved through multidisciplinary research by integrating new ICT with scientific understanding of the human mind, including neurological, cognitive, motivational and social bases of learning.

Based on a concept that was originally proposed in the 1930’s by the Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida, “ba” is defined as a context in which knowledge is shared, created and utilised. In the process of knowledge development, the creation and regeneration of ba is key. It can be a physical space, virtual space,

In-d

epth

30

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

mental space, or any combination of these. The most important aspect of ba is interaction11.

The power to create knowledge is embedded not just within an individual, but also within interactions with other individuals or with the environment. Ba is a space where such interactions take place. Knowledge held by a particular individual can be shared, recreated, and amplified when that person participates in ba. Ba works as the platform for the concentration of the organisation’s knowledge assets, for it collects the applied knowledge of the area and integrates it.

In all phases of life, learners and teachers are challenged to develop and even to change their personal work methods, in all work and learning environments. Among other things, this requires the following changes in work culture12:

− Commitment must be emphasised. Theory must be converted into action, compelling people to create a shared learning and working space – ba will shift the focus of action onto intellectual and virtual collaboration and a variety of collaboration networks.

− Action and results must be emphasised. As part of lifelong learning support, learners and teachers must create their

own personal knowledge management “tool boxes”, emphasising systematic development and the results of action.

− Predicting the future must be emphasised. In lifelong learning, learners and teachers must emphasise the regeneration of knowledge. Consequently, the capacity and skills for critical knowledge processing will be understood to be the most crucial factors in learning.

− Rising to the challenges of information and knowledge must be emphasised. Learners and teachers must be able to use new learning and work methods to manage increasingly larger information and knowledge entities, and related sustaining networks.

− The basic knowledge management values – openness and trust must will be emphasised. It is only in an open atmosphere of trust that people can genuinely work and develop things together.

“ Triple helix” has not failed, but needs continuous redefining

The issue of optimising the interface between working life organisations and academia is crucial for enhancing systemic innovation in a knowledge-based economy. It addresses systemic

communication and collaboration between parties. It is a question of how information flows freely between these poles. It seeks to optimise the mobility over time of students and employees between academia and a company. It is all that, but it goes beyond as well, penetrating into the issue of how the science base of a particular knowledge creation process, its conditions and phases, are formed, acquired and further enriched in a complex system of innovation collaboration that is necessary and beneficial to both parties. The complexity of the innovation ecology is further heightened by interventions provided by third party intermediaries complementing the picture to form the triangle of the so-called “triple helix” model. In that model, the third sun is broadly named “government”.

Such government agencies are typically involved as technology or training funding agencies providing funding, information, infrastructure and policy support. Sustainability is sought through long-term programmes, which are rather insensitive to short-term economic and political conjunctures. This fairly hands-off role of government might not be optimal and will hopefully be evolving in the foreseeable future. Government could and should play an active enabler role for profound, cross-border, large-scale networks in

11 Nonaka, I., Toyama R. and Byosiére, P., 2001. A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Un-derstanding the Dynamics Process of Creating Knowledge. In: M. Dierkes, A. Berthoin Antal, J. Child and I. Nonaka, eds. Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 491-517.

12 Markkula, M., 2007. Europe Needs to Invent its Future – Desired Changes Do Not Just Happen. In: A. Boonen and W.V. Petegem, eds. European Networking and Learning Future, The Europace Approach. Antwerp: Garant, 335-341.

In-d

epth

31

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

which substantial numbers of experts from companies and universities work together. Open Innovation is the driver of change integrating university-level research, teaching, learning and different collaborative multidimensional developments. The Finnish National Innovation Strategy is indeed calling for new concepts for collaboration between universities and industry that focus both on strategic, primary research and on innovations.

“Otafokus”Here, we provide one example of how an academic institution can systematically approach the needs of rapidly changing conditions and of companies. It is a concept developed by our university’s continuing education centre, the Dipoli Lifelong Learning Institute (TKK Dipoli), which has coined the “Otafokus”14 model.

Otafokus has its roots in TKK Dipoli’s long-standing provision of continuing education services to technology-oriented companies. We have been privileged to become the pivot where the professional development needs of related companies and the real world test-beds for technical university knowledge creation, application and dissemination have been put into a melting pot, which we have been stirring

13 SP stands for study credits.14 The name refers to the village Otaniemi where a substantial technology hub has grown around TKK

and the State research centre. We focus on the academia-industry axis. It is the backbone vitalising the current knowledge economy in the region and spurring the national economy as well.

Figure 2. The basic structure of a TKK Dipoli professional development programme.13

STRUCTURE oF THE PRoGRAMME

INDUSTRY ROADMAP – Increasing General Knowledge of The Industry

DEVELOPING PERSONAL TOOLBOX

UNIVERSITY - COMPANY MODULES IN WEEKS

VIRTUL COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND NETWORKING

TKK2

TKK10

TKK11 FINAL

WORK13

Company5

Company10

Company6

Building own networks

Company practices Special assignments Development projects Personal directives

Operative company visits Participing industry events, seminars and forums

OTAFOKUS

oTA

FoK

US

DIP

LoM

A, 6

0sp

In-d

epth

32

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Aalto University. 2009. www.aaltoyliopisto.info/en/news/funding-to-aalto-university-s-aivoaalto-research-project

Academy of Finland and Tekes. 2007. FinnSight 2015 - Science and Technology in Finland in the 2010s, www.finnsight2015.fi

Government´s Communication on Finland´s National Innovation Strategy to the Parliament www.tem.fi/files/21010/National_Innovation_Strategy_March_2009.pdf

Kao, J., 2009. Tapping the World’s Innovation Hot Spots. Harvard Business Review, 87 (3), 109-114.

Knowledge practices laboratory 2007. www.kp-lab.org

Markkula, M., 2007. Europe Needs to Invent its Future – Desired Changes Do Not Just Happen. In: A. Boonen and W.V. Petegem, eds. European Networking and Learning Future, The Europace Approach. Antwerp: Garant, 335-341.

Markkula, M., 2009. Unpublished Aalto University discussion paper.

Miller, R. Shapiro, H. and Hilding-Hamann, K.E., 2008. School’s Over: Learning Spaces in Europe in 2020: An Imagining Exercise on the Future of Learning. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC47412.pdf

Nonaka, I., Toyama R. and Byosiére, P., 2001. A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Understanding the Dynamics Process of Creating Knowledge. In: M. Dierkes, A. Berthoin Antal, J. Child and I. Nonaka, eds. Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 491-517.

Paavola, S. Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen, K., 2004. Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of Educational Research, 74 (4), 557–576.

Proposal for Finland’s National Innovation Strategy 2008. www.innovaatiostrategia.fi/files/download/Nationalinnovationstrategy_EN-20080704.pdf

References

with our own pedagogical and learning technology recipes.

The objectives and content of each Otafokus programme are defined to meet the needs common to the industry group in question, while also paying attention to the individual needs of participating companies. Students are selected by TKK in close co-operation with the recruiting companies.

TKK offers a multidisciplinary and international environment for the implementation of programmes in any industry sector. As part of Aalto University, the multidisciplinarity of study programmes will be enhanced. The typical structure of any Otafokus programme is illustrated in Figure 2.

The Otafokus concept simultaneously serves three demands long expressed

in debates on the practical course of developments: facilitated work-based learning, blended learning and integrating theory into practice. Formulating the concept and fleshing it out has been quite a collaborative effort involving many committed stakeholders and organisations in a long-standing development effort.

Read more

www.elearningpapers.eu/vol15

In-d

epth

33

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s


KeywordseLearning 2.0, personal learning environments, platform, trial

This contribution presents and evaluates a new learning environment model based on web 2.0 applications. In a theoretical overview, we introduce the concepts of eLearning 2.0 and Personal Learning Environments, along with their main aspects of autonomy, creativity and networking, and relate them to the didactics of constructivism and connectivism. The requirements and basic functional components for the development of our particular web 2.0 learning environment are derived from these aspects.

The section describing the implementation of the environment in a trial at the Darmstadt University of Applied Science focuses on the specific didactic contribution made by the particular learning modules to the overall learning arrangement.

Our learning environment was tested and evaluated during the “Social Software” course held in 2007/08 as part of the information science program at the Darmstadt University of Applied Science. A questionnaire-based survey reveals interesting facts regarding the success of the practical implementation of the web 2.0 arrangement with respect to the motivation and learning outcome of students. The survey was supplemented by some informal feedback provided in a concluding discussion. With these results in mind, this paper concludes with some remarks on the potential of the learning environment in broader educational contexts.

Authors Ingo Blees and Marc Rittberger German Institute for International Educational Research [email protected]@dipf.de

Concept

Changing technologies and educational changeThe web 2.0 represents a qualitative leap in web technologies that have made the internet more creative, participative and social. But has this development also triggered a revolution in learning? Do education and learning need to be re-thought in view of the continuous change to information and communication technologies, and do we need new concepts and designs for working and learning environments? The thesis that “web 2.0 instruments (social software) become increasingly relevant as they further the exchange of knowledge and the development of skills in networks and beyond the net in an optimal way” (Erpenbeck & Sauter, 2007, p. 162) is widespread and present in many variations amongst scholars and educators concerned with the design of learning environments and eLearning.

But how can the didactic potential of new technologies be put to use for learning processes in the knowledge

Sum

mar

y



In-d

epth

34

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

society, wherein increasingly important skills, such as methodological and media skills, must be acquired in addition to the knowledge itself?

In his illuminating and trend-setting lecture, “A Portal To Media Literacy”, cultural anthropologist Michael Wesch (2008) assumes that the information and communication culture of students has changed due to new web technologies. He contrasts these new technologies to the anachronistic conditions and teaching concepts existing in educational institutions, and states the hypothesis that learners should be able to effectively acquire the knowledge they require by applying the media they use anyway. However, this requires that appropriate learning and teaching settings enable learners to develop the media literacy they need for knowledge acquisition as well as methodological competency – particularly as regards self-governing and productive learning. According to Wesch, the main challenge to future learning is “creating platforms for participation that allow students to realize and leverage the emerging media environment.” Wesch (2008: 27:30)

This view is also prominently held by Downes (2005), who coined the term eLearning 2.0, conceived as an “interlocking set of open-source applications [where] learning is becoming a creative activity and [where]

the appropriate venue is a platform rather than an application.”1

Wageneder & Jadin (2007) provide the following extended definition of eLearning 2.0 with reference to Downes:

“We can talk of eLearning 2.0 applications if users apply web 2.0 media, i.e. social software, such as wikis, weblogs or RSS in collaborative learning activities for autonomously producing their own learning contents and use them for their own learning objectives. This definition clearly outlines a central feature of an eLearning 2.0 setting: learners are autonomous in acquiring knowledge.”

The implementation of collaborative and activating applications of the social web for eLearning 2.0 purposes refers to the related model of Personal Learning Environments (PLE). At a descriptive level, a PLE allows learners “to access, aggregate, configure and manipulate digital artefacts of their ongoing learning experiences” (Lubensky, 2006). As regards web 2.0 tools, this implies a “collection of free, distributed, web-based tools, […] linked together and aggregating content using RSS feeds and simple HTML scripts” (Fitzgerald, 2006)2. Downes postulates that the values of web 2.0 and the idea of PLE are essentially identical, namely

“the fostering of social networks and communities, the emphasis on creation rather than consumption, and the decentralisation of content and control” (2007. p. 19).

Hence, there is a trend in contemporary learning towards more activity, self-productivity and self-governing, to networking learners and their learning spaces and to a shift of accentuation in the nature of learning from the product towards the process. These developments are expressed by the learning theories of constructivism and connectivism. From a constructivist perspective, learning is a constructive, active, emotional, self-organised, social, situational process.3

Siemens (2004) introduces a further significant aspect of learning in his learning theory termed connectivism. A focal aspect of connectivism concerns the use of networks. Learning in the connectivist sense requires open learning environments that enable connections and exchanges with other network partners, who will build up productive learning communities.

Requirements of a web 2.0 learning environmentThe idea of “learning networks” leads us from connectivism back to Wesch’s demand for a concept of learning

The implementation of collaborative and activating applications of the social web for eLearning 2.0 purposes refers to the related model of Personal Learning Environments (PLE)

1 Emphasis by the authors of this article.2 For a description of PLE, see also Bernhardt & Kirchner (2007, p. 27ff); further PLE sources are Downes

(2007), Attwell (2007), Wagner (2006) and van Harmelen (2006); an early model for PLE known as “Future VLE” can be found in Wilson (2005). An overview of the different types of PLE can be found in LTC (2008).

3 See Erpenbeck & Sauter (2007, p. 157). On the relationship between theories of learning: instructional design, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism; cf. also the overview in Erpenbeck & Sauter (2007, p. 152), following Baumgartner and Kalz (2004).

In-d

epth

35

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Microcontent

• Topics, Tags, Categories

• Reports, Disputes

• Media

RSS Input

RSS Output

portals. The pedagogical approach associated with PLE results in the notion of a portal as being a particularly apt model for designing learning environments (Downes 2007; Kerres, 2006).

The perspective for eLearning 2.0 lies in the adoption of the portal concept. An eLearning 2.0 environment would thus be a signpost to finding proven quality learning content on the internet. Besides containing metadata and references to online resources, the learning portal or learning environment can also deliver self-produced learning content or online tools suitable for learning. Furthermore, the learning environment should offer a “mechanism” for collecting and integrating content and tools in a goal-oriented way (Kerres, 2006).4

Following Kerres’ (2006a) essentials of a web 2.0 learning portal and his guidelines for “an eLearning scenario following a ‘web 2.0’ approach” (Kerres, 2007), a clustering of characteristics results in the following four requirement groups for a web 2.0 learning environment:

Openness,�permeability:

- The learning environment is not an isolated island, but a learning portal.

4 This integrative mechanism is also named as essential to a well-functioning PLE by Siemens (2004), Downes (2005; 2007) and Attwell (2007).

Figure 1. Overview of the learning environment

Social Bookmarking

• Literature• Web resources

• User-Actions

• Network-Effects

RSS-Feed

• Tagging• Metadata• Folksonomy

Mashup:Journal-Alert

RSS-Feeds

Google News

Technorati

Journal 1 Journal 2 Journal 3RSS-Alerting Monotoring Aggregation Filtering

Knowlegde Base Collaboratively created reference database

Learning Jorunal agile information management: sharing experiences and ideas

Learning CentralWiki as the central for the formal organisation of learning activities as well as the content-related integration and distribution of learning materials and learning cutcomes

Feed-Input• References• Weblog• Journal-Alert

PlanningOrganisation

Exercises

Topics• Articles• Dossiers• Resources

In-d

epth

36

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Participation:

- Learners and teachers actively participate in the development of the learning environment. Learners can integrate known instruments that are already in use.

- Learners and teachers work with the same platforms and tools, for preparing units of learning, working on them and distributing them.

- The participants use a free choice of tags and they incrementally develop a “folksonomy”, reflecting their stock of interests and knowledge – the learning units are thus structured and made navigable.

Motivation:�

- The learning environment should make the individual engagement of every learner visible in a transparent way.

- The learning environment should promote the establishment of a community of learners, where learners and teachers can meet one another in person.

- Teachers show their presence in the learning environment: they deliver resources and make contributions and suggestions, for instance by participating in discussions.

Monitoring,�feedback,�evaluation:

- Teachers track/pursue individual and shared learning activities.

- Teachers offer regular feedback and assess contributions in an appropriate fashion for encouraging motivation.

In the course of the analysis of our trial presented in Section 2, we will show how these requirements are fulfilled by the different learning environment modules.

Functional elements of the web 2.0 learning environmentA web 2.0 learning environment can be implemented in a variety of ways. Decisions on implementations often depend on one’s personal experience with software, learning objectives and existing media skills. The unpredictable character of developments in the area of specialised, stand-alone software solutions implies that “learning environments should be realised independent from specific tools” (Kerres, 2006, p. 7). Hence, it would seem appropriate to adopt a modular concept with more abstract definitions of the functional areas of the learning environment, which, in the learning setting presented here, are applied using exemplary applications that are interchangeable with equivalent

functions. The functional areas of the model web 2.0 learning environment introduced below are presented in Figure 1:

− �Learning�centre:�used for the formal organisation of learning activities, the integration of content and the distribution of learning material and outcomes. The learning centre is implemented in a wiki platform, in this case a MediaWiki.

− Knowledge�base: all kinds of resources, including texts and audiovisual media, are collected here. The tagging process results in a folksonomy for the domain of interest. The common use leads to networking effects. The knowledge base is implemented by means of a social bookmarking service, in this case CiteULike.

− Learning�journal: here, the learners can record interesting encounters with the thematic areas without having to meet the formal requirements of working in the learning centre and the knowledge base. This area is suitable for any kind of short contribution, such as announcing interesting links or texts or inserting audio and video contributions, with the option of commenting on or tagging them using the folksonomy terminology.5

5 The total number of tags on a bookmarking platform is known as a folksonomy (folk + taxonomy).

In-d

epth

37

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

6 For the problem orientation and closeness to reality of learning and skills acquisition, see Erpenbeck & Sauter (2007, p. 163).

−��Alerting�service: a number of different information providers are continually checked for updates, which are aggregated and filtered by certain thematic areas. The RSS format functions as a descriptive language for the exchange of data. RSS also offers the integrative mechanism necessary for a learning portal.

To improve integration into the learning arrangement and promote motivation: 1) elements of the web 2.0 learning environment, particularly the wiki platform, are used in both the online phases and the face-to-face sessions (Cubric, 2007 and 2) the learners are actively involved in conceptualising, developing and implementing the learning environment – hence one of the requirements, namely participation, is already put into practice.

ImplementationThis section explains the four functional areas of our web 2.0 learning environment introduced above, wherein the wiki is described in more detail. It describes how the wiki can be used as an instrument for the active, flexible and social construction of knowledge, thus allowing for

problem-oriented, explorative learning6.

The wiki platform constitutes the learning portal that integrates content from all of the learning modules into the learning environment, making it accessible in a structured way. It serves not only as a knowledge repository, but also as a working environment.

Learning�matters�in�the�wikiThe wiki can be designed as a comprehensive and complete document and media repository providing all of the learning material in a clear and freely accessible way (Kepp et al., 2008; Himpsl, 2007).

These kinds of learning material consist of learning resources that are available on the Internet (as elucidated above), including literature, web resources and audiovisual media. The media can be directly played in the wiki itself once the respective technical extensions have been installed, which, like the wiki as such, are available as Open Source products (Reinhold & Abawi, 2006; Blees, Reinhold & Rittberger, 2008). The widespread opinion that wikis are exclusively or

predominantly limited to working with texts is ill-founded (Erpenbeck & Sauter, 2007); wikis have developed so that they are suitable for implementation in multimedia learning environments.

The outcomes of the learning processes themselves, i.e. the (interim) results of learning activities, are aggregated in the wiki in the form of an e-portfolio (Salzburg Research, 2006; Schaffert et al., 2006). The wiki presents test tasks and solutions, presentations, graphical images, minutes, reports and transcripts of interviews the learners have conducted themselves as well as tests carried out in projects, all categorised by field.

The distinction between external learning content and that contributed by the users themselves corresponds to the difference between static and dynamic content. While static content includes all the items accessible by external links and uploaded items linked to wiki documents and media, the dynamic content constitutes the actual wiki sites themselves, where collaborative writing processes are taught and “learning content” is practised. Owing to the principles of dynamic generation and change, the wikis are highly interactive at both levels of individual objects and their organisation, thus “making a crucial

Figure 2. Wiki portal homepage

In-d

epth

38

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

difference to the quality of learning” (Schulmeister, 2004, p. 13).

Learning�activitiesThe learning activities are aimed at thematic, subject-related activities as well as at training methodological and information skills.

The wiki accompanies all learning activities as a communication platform, in offering the possibility of a message board where current news and events can be published. Furthermore, a parallel commentary site is maintained for each wiki site, where discussions can be held regarding the content of any of the wiki sites in question.

a) Knowledge acquisition

The actual thematic learning activity starts with practical tasks and complex real-life problems; learners have to search, evaluate, select, aggregate and order the relevant material they can use for building up a knowledge base. While dealing with actual problems, the learners produce learning materials, such as texts or audiovisual media, which can be used by the other learners during a course: each user can learn something from the contributions of others, thus promoting the reciprocity of learning, or social learning (Schaffert et al., 2006).

b) Skills acquisition7

The super-ordinate process in a wiki, accompanying all learning, concerns project management. It comprises planning, organising, monitoring and feedback as well as a progressive documentation of project courses. Since the project management in the wiki is transparent to all of the students and they participate in it to a certain extent, they can improve their methodological skills with regard to planning and organising complex, project-based tasks.

The learners also train their information and media skills by using the wiki for building hypertext structures and for the collaborative production of scientific texts (Thelen & Gruber, 2003). The students can successively practice the fulfilment of quality standards for scientific writing, which are precisely formulated by the teacher at the beginning, and best documented in the wiki itself as an orientation for the writing process. The learners can continually improve and refine their written work, and practice improving the plausibility of their texts as well as the use of references and appropriate terminology.

c) Progression in learning

The collaborative level of the wiki enables users to formulate and deal with (constructive) criticism. The contributions of learners undergo several feedback loops in order to optimise the texts. The process of learning and its progression are thus rendered far more transparent, not only for the learners as individuals and as a group, but also for the teachers. The different versions of individual wiki articles reveal the progression in learning; the initially crude and sketchy understanding of a topic is increasingly differentiated and rendered more precise and complete. The structuring options of the wiki software enable students themselves to develop a clear structure for an agenda of learning objectives.

Roles�or�tasks�of�learners�and�teachers8

a) LearnersLearners are expected to identify complex, real-life problems on their own and to actively construct and structure knowledge for processing them. Learning processes are participatory, that is, learners are involved in formulating and reflecting learning objectives. They need to deal with the complexity of real-life problem scenarios and apply their

7 A typology of skills is given by Erpenbeck & Sauter (2007, p. 63ff).

8 For the complementary roles of learners and teachers cf. the “cognitive apprenticeship” in Schaffert et al. (2006), as well as Erpenbeck & Sauter (2007, p. 158f).

Figure 3. The course’s notion of web 2.0 represented in CiteULike’s tag cloud

In-d

epth

39

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

9 Reinhold & Abawi (2006), Cubric (2007), Erpenbeck & Sauter (2007, p. 151).

10 Reinhold & Abawi (2006), Cubric (2007).

methodological skills to transferring them into work packages that can be solved.

b) Teachers

In a wiki learning environment, teachers act as coaches or moderators in the process of learning and teaching (Bernhardt & Kirchner, 2007) by introducing and pre-structuring work, particularly in the beginning.

i) Curricular integration

The basic idea derived from constructivist learning theories is that students should be allowed to learn in a self-regulatory and explorative manner. Despite the expected autonomy and responsibility of learners, the teacher should ascertain the successful learning outcome by contributing supportive measures to the learning activities (Koubek, 2008). Students should be made fully aware of the assessment value of working with the wiki for grading and this should consequently be put into practice (Cubric, 2007; Reinhold & Abawi, 2006).

ii) Orientation, structure and examples

Learners require an established framework for beginning and continuing to work successfully with a wiki9. The necessary supportive

measures on the part of teachers include the good examples a teacher must have prepared for the tasks he or she expects the students to fulfil, as well as guidelines providing the students with a framework for orientation and making it easier for them to produce scientific texts according to the criteria of plausibility, clarity and stringency, including references and their quality. Experience with the learning environment presented here shows that an activation of the creative potential of learners intrinsically motivates their production of learning outcomes to a degree that goes beyond the necessity and pressure of formal achievement.

iii) Monitoring, feedback, transparency

Teachers need to practice active monitoring10. Beyond giving feedback, the teacher has to organise the steadily growing content of the wiki on a meta-level, e.g. by thematically ordering the contributions, that is, categorising them in a MediaWiki or introducing navigation elements. Advanced groups of learners can take some of these tasks on themselves, but teachers always need to make sure that the environment remains as clearly structured and transparent as necessary for a learning platform.

Knowledge base: The social bookmarking service CiteULike CiteULike is one of the many social bookmarking services that are openly available (Emamy & Cameron, 2007). These social bookmark administration systems are based on a simple idea: bookmarks relating to any kind of web resource are stored in the user account of a database and can be indexed by any other user with any keyword. The frequency of index terms (tags) indicates the topical focus of the resource collection, which is graphically illustrated by the tag cloud function these systems offer. The total number of tags on a bookmarking platform is known as a folksonomy (folk + taxonomy).

Our work with CiteULike aimed at jointly creating a course bibliography, which mainly listed scientific publications on the topic of “Web 2.0/Social Software”. CiteULike was selected because it specialises in the bibliographic reference of scientific online resources – though these platforms generally allow for the aggregation and enrichment with metadata of any kind of reference, including audiovisual media. Each of the individual user activities is logged, so that the contributions of members can be assessed individually.

Figure 4. Typical CiteULike entry with semantic and social relations

In-d

epth

40

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

The achievement of learners consists of the selection of relevant sources with proven quality and their correct indexing. As a result of this exercise, the students set up a collection of 150 records referencing scholarly literature, enriched by formal and content-related index terms that support the navigability of the collection.

Furthermore, the tagging process and the resulting tag clouds made students aware of thematically relevant terminology and of the topical focus of their work11.

Figure 4 displays a typical bookmarking entry showing that the platform offers enhanced browsing options in addition to the search in the users’ own collection; content-related search items are collated, and so the entire platform can be searched.

Tools: Learning journal blogThe open source software Wordpress allows students to set up their own learning journals (Mosel, 2005; Williams & Jacobs, 2004; Luján-Mora, 2006). While wikis are more focused on setting up and maintaining a knowledge

base in a systematic and coherent way, blogs contain rather simple units of information, so-called micro-content, permitting a more agile management of information. In a blog and the focus lies on the direct exchange of experience and comments, contributions can be thematically sorted by categories and tags based on the wiki categories and the CiteULike folksonomy mentioned above, in order to provide easy orientation throughout the learning environment.

Alerting service: RSS feed technologyVia the RSS (Really Simple Syndication) news feed format, users can subscribe to the pure content of many websites without receiving the additional ballast of layout information and without having to visit each of the sites they are interested in and checking it for updates. In this way, users can create their personal alerting services from different information channels and different types of resources (Nagler et al., 2007; D’Souza, 2006).

The RSS feed technology takes over the focal function for the content integration of all of the web 2.0 modules applied here. How the diverse sources of information are integrated by means of RSS can be well understood by means of Figure 1, which shows the

information flow between the modules. Continually updated content of the other modules is presented on the wiki learning centre homepage and directly accessible from there by hyperlink (see Figure 2 above).

Evaluation by students: Learning outcome and motivation

Questionnaire-based evaluationThe questionnaire-based survey of the “Social Software” course held as part of the information science program at the Darmstadt University of Applied Science in the winter semester of 2007/08 provides some insight into the success of blended learning using a web 2.0 learning environment. The course’s membership was heterogeneous: of the total of 13 students, 8 attended the diploma program, while the other 5 students were in the bachelor degree program. 6 of the diploma students and 4 of the bachelor degree students had working experience. According to their self-assessment, their skill in working with computers and electronic environments respectively ranged from 1 (=very low) to 5 (=very high), with the mean at 4.08.

A majority of 8 persons assessed the blended learning approach as good

11 www.citeulike.org/group/2924/library

In-d

epth

41

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

(5 abstentions), which corresponds to the statement of a preference for a combined learning method comprising instructional learning, group work and discussion as well as individual learning in virtual environments.

The use of a wiki as a platform for the collaborative acquisition of knowledge was estimated as good by the large majority of 11 students (2 abstentions). The use of the wiki as a server for file sharing was assessed as good by 9 students (3 abstentions). There were no negative votes here, even though the students normally work with the alternative Blackboard LMS.

All of the participants, without exception, gave a positive assessment of the fact that the contributions of others are freely accessible by all. This correlates with the positive statement that contributions of others are taken into account; the mean on a scale from 1 to 5 was 4.15 here.

The virtual asynchronous discussion platform the students could access via the blog was estimated as good by 6 persons and as bad by one person (6 abstentions): this ambivalent vote probably results from the voluntary

character of entries in the blog and the respective low participation ratio here.

The setup of a collection of references to scientific publications by means of a social bookmarking service was assessed as good by 8 persons and as bad by 3 persons (2 abstentions). The negative comments surprised us because the output of this module resulted in 150 bibliographic records of proven quality and a rich set of metadata. A possible explanation might be the additional workload the students had to cope with regarding the continuous search for information and the setup of the bibliography.

Despite the positive assessment of the accessibility and use of the wiki content, questions regarding the effect of the wiki on learning outcomes and motivation revealed only mean results of 3.42 for motivation and 3.17 for the learning outcome. The influence of the wiki platform on communication and information skills was estimated as rather low, as well, with 2.6 for communication skills and 3.08 for information skills.

Oral interviews: FeedbackThe latter four scores referred to in the previous paragraph are, however, corrected in a positive way when one takes into account the oral feedback collected in a concluding open discussion. Students explicitly

stated that they found it positive to work on learning contents themselves. They emphasised that the wiki content provides a useful overview on the subject area and yields a good knowledge repository that they can refer to beyond the context of the course. Feedback was also positive with regard to the development of skills: the students agreed that they had been able to increase their technical and media skills by using the wiki software and the other web 2.0 tools integrated into the learning environment. They also stated that the writing of wiki articles, together with regular feedback from the tutor, had improved their text writing skills.

DiscussionLearner motivation and learning outcomesBoth of these surveys revealed positive results. The following explanation might be given for the points of criticism raised by the students. The explanation and resulting recommendations should, however, be subject to further assessment following a modification of the learning environment.

Since the students were familiarised with several of the web 2.0 tools used in such a course and have to work with them, we cannot always rely on the necessary degree of awareness.

Despite the partial lack of motivation, the learning setting described here proved highly productive.

In-d

epth

42

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Regarding the design of the wiki learning environment, we can infer that important guiding meta-information needs to be presented more conspicuously and with even more redundancy.

In analogy, this also concerns the students’ wish for enhancing the communication functions of the learning environment. A course blog was set up especially for facilitating a regular and timely exchange. Even though the students themselves had configured the blog and the blog contributions were integrated into the wiki platform by RSS feeds, the communicative function of the blog was not satisfactorily perceived.

We can thus give the pragmatic recommendation for a web 2.0 learning environment that only those system components should be integrated for which the contents are graded for assessment – the vast workload students are confronted with hardly allows for an intrinsic motivation to engage in optional work.

Despite the partial lack of motivation, the learning setting described here proved highly productive. The social bookmarking module generated a comprehensive, thoroughly indexed collection of scholarly resources that is available online – meanwhile, several

requests have been made by members of the CiteULike community for admission into the course’s work group: this tool is thus appropriate for use in a networking approach. The written works published by participants in the wiki are mostly of good to very good quality with regard to both formal and content-related criteria. In future, the wiki shall lead to an online publication delivering an introduction and overview of the focal topics of web 2.0 and thus be further used as a learning resource.

The maintenance workload of the learning environment introduced here is comparatively high, even though distributed content is collated in the wiki learning centre and the respective modules provide protocols and monitoring options for teachers: the activities need to be continually observed and feedback must be given, and content structures need to be adapted to newly added content. On the other hand, as Kerres (2006) stated, it is true that the students recognise and appreciate the additional work of the teachers and regard it as a source of motivation.

Model characterAs we have already pointed out, the learning environment presented here is principally suited to any kind of course subject, topics, learning matters and (electronic) media, i.e. the model introduced here can, if modified

accordingly, be transferred to other learning contexts such as continuing vocational training or learning at the workplace. The use of web 2.0 tools not only contributes to the autonomous building of the necessary knowledge in terms of content, but users also practice the media and information skills required for working with these tools. This includes searching, selecting and filtering, as well as structuring and presenting knowledge; all of these skills are central to lifelong learning and an autonomous and successful engagement in future professional tasks and projects.

Since a web 2.0 learning environment is browser-based, working with web 2.0 applications is either already familiar or can be acquired quickly and intuitively. Therefore, it can be integrated into existing workflows more easily than proprietary learning software. The model presented here may provide an orientation as to how a plethora of available web applications can be implemented as functional equivalents of modules in a learning environment. Furthermore, simple XML exchange formats exist besides RSS, and some applications offer application programming interfaces (API) for using content elsewhere. In any case, the learning environment offers all of the prerequisites for running courses across the borders of subjects, disciplines or universities and in this way establishing networks.

The model presented here may provide an orientation as to how a plethora of available web applications can be implemented as functional equivalents of modules in a learning environment.

Read more


In-d

epth

43

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Attwell, G. (2007) Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning? eLearning Papers Vol 2, Nº 1, January 2007, pp. 1-8. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media11561.pdf

Baumgartner, P. & Kalz, M. (2004) Content Management Systeme aus bildungstechnologischer Sicht. In: Baumgartner, P., Häfele, H. & Maier-Häfele, K. (2004) Content Management Systeme in e-Education. Innsbruck, Wien, 14-66.

Bernhardt, T. & Kirchner, M. (2007) E-Learning 2.0 im Einsatz. Boizenburg: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch.

Blees, I., Reinhold, A. & Rittberger, M. (2009) Qualitätssicherung von Wikis. Best Practice zur Evaluierung von MediaWiki im Bildungsbereich: Usability-Testing und Systementwicklung/-erweiterungen. In: R. Kuhlen (Ed.): Information: Droge, Ware oder Commons? Wertschöpfungs- und Transformationsprozesse auf den Informationsmärkten. Proceedings of the 11. International Symposium of Information Science 2009 (ISI 2009). Boizenburg: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch, 159-176.

Cubric, Marija (2007) Wiki-based Process Framework for Blended Learning. In: WikiSym’07, October 21-23, 2007, Montreal, Canada. ACM, 11-22.

D’Souza, Q. (2006) RSS Ideas for Educators. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://www.teachinghacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/RSS%20Ideas%20for%20Educators111.pdf.

Downes, S. (2005) E-Learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine (o.A.) Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1.

Downes, S. (2007) Learning networks in practice. Emerging Technologies for Learning 2 (2007), 19-27. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies07_chapter2.pdf.

Emamy, K. & Cameron, R. (2007) Citeulike: A Researcher’s Social Bookmarking Service. In: Ariadne 51, April 2007. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue51/emamy-cameron/.

Erpenbeck, J. & Sauter, W. (2007) Kompetenzentwicklung im Netz. New Blended Learning mit Web 2.0. Köln: Wolters Kluwer.

Fitzgerald, S. (2006) Creating your Personal Learning Environment. A workshop presented for the August 3rd LearnScope Workshop. Australian Technology Park, Redfern. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://seanfitz.wikispaces.com/creatingyourple.

Himpsl, K. (2007) Wikis im Blended Learning – Ein Werkstattbericht. Boizenburg: vwh.

Hohenstein, A. & Wilbers, K. (Eds.) (2002) Handbuch E-Learning. Köln: Fachverlag Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst. Loseblattsammlung, Grundwerk 2002, 27. Ergänzungslieferung, 2008.

Kepp, S.-J., Womser-Hacker, C. & Mandl, T. (2008) Verwendung eines Wikis als Repository für Lernmaterialien aus E-Learning Kursen. In: Ockenfeld, M. (Ed.) Verfügbarkeit von Informationen, 30. Online-Tagung der DGI, Proceedings, 15. - 17. Oktober 2008, Frankfurt am Main 2008, 187-95.

Kerres, M. (2006) Potenziale von Web 2.0 nutzen. In: Hohenstein, A. & Wilbers, K. (2002), o.S., Beitrag 4.26. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from http://mediendidaktik.uni-duisburg-essen.de/system/files/web20-a.pdf. --- (2007) Microlearning as a challenge to instructional design. In: Hug, T. & Lindner, M. (Eds) (2007): Didactics of Microlearning. Münster: Waxmann. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://mediendidaktik.uni-duisburg-essen.de/system/files/Microlearning-kerres.pdf.

Koubek, J. (2008) Wiki-Didaktik zwischen Kognitivismus und Konstruktivismus. In: GML 2008, Grundfragen multimedialen Lehrens und Lernens (to appear) Preprint Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/koubek/forschung/KoubekWikiDidaktik.pdf.

LTC (2008) Ple. In: Wiki of the Learning Technologies Centre of the University of Manitoba. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wiki/Ple .

Lubensky, R. (2006) The present and future of Personal Learning Environments (PLE). Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://members.optusnet.com.au/rlubensky/2006/12/present-and-future-of-personal-learning.html.

References

http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media11561.pdf

http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media11561.pdf

http://www.teachinghacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/RSS%20Ideas%20for%20Educators111.pdf

http://www.teachinghacks.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/RSS%20Ideas%20for%20Educators111.pdf

http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1

http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1

http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies07_chapter2.pdf

http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies07_chapter2.pdf

http://mediendidaktik.uni-duisburg-essen.de/system/files/Microlearning-kerres.pdf

http://mediendidaktik.uni-duisburg-essen.de/system/files/Microlearning-kerres.pdf

http://mediendidaktik.uni-duisburg-essen.de/system/files/web20-a.pdf

http://mediendidaktik.uni-duisburg-essen.de/system/files/web20-a.pdf

http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/koubek/forschung/KoubekWikiDidaktik.pdf

http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/koubek/forschung/KoubekWikiDidaktik.pdf

Luján-Mora, S. (2006) A Survey of Use of Weblogs in Education. In: Current Developments in Technology-Assisted Education, 255-59. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from www.formatex.org/micte2006/pdf/255-259.pdf

Mosel, S. (2005) Praktiken selbstgesteuerten Lernens anhand der Nutzung von web-basierten Personal-Publishing-Systemen. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from weblog.plasticthinking.org/media/1/diplomarbeit-weblogs-lernen.pdf

Nagler, W., Korica-Pehserl, P. & Ebner, M. (2007) RSS – the Door to E-Learning 2.0. In: E-Learning: Strategische Implementierungen und Studiengang, Tagungsband zur 13. FNMA-Tagung, Verlag Forum Neue Medien Austria, 2007, 131-138.

Reinhold, S. & Abawi, D.F. (2006) Concepts for Extending Wiki Systems to Supplement Collaborative Learning. In: Pan, Z. et al. (Eds.): Edutainment 2006, LNCS 3942, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 755-67.

Salzburg Research (2006) E-Portfolios. Methode und Werkzeug für kompetenzbasiertes Lernen. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://edumedia.salzburgresearch.at

Schaffert, S., Bischof, D., Bürger, T., Gruber, A., Hilzensauer, W. & Schaffert, S. (2006) Learning with Semantic Wikis. In: First Workshop “SemWiki2006 - From Wiki to Semantics”, co-located with the 3rd Annual European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), Budva, Montenegro, 11.-14.6.2006. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from www.salzburgresearch.at/research/gfx/semantic_wiki_elearning.pdf

Schulmeister, R. (2004) Didaktisches Design aus hochschuldidaktischer Sicht. Ein Plädoyer für offene Lernsituationen. In: Rinn, U. & Meister, D.M. (Eds.) (2004) Didaktik und Neue Medien. Konzepte und Anwendungen in der Hochschullehre. (Medien in der Wissenschaft 21), 19-49.

Siemens, G. (2004) Connectivism. A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Elearnspace, December 12, 2004. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Thelen, T. & Gruber, C. (2003) Kollaboratives Lernen mit WikiWikiWebs. In: Kerres, M., Voß, B. (Eds.) Digitaler Campus. Vom Medienprojekt zum nachhaltigen Medieneinsatz in der Hochschule. Münster: Waxmann, 356-65.

Van Harmelen, M. (2006) Personal Learning Environments. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’06) Issue , 05-07 July 2006, pp .815 - 816. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/ape/

Wageneder, G. & Jadin, T. (2007) eLearning 2.0 - Neue Lehr/Lernkultur mit Social Software? In: Verein “Forum Neue Medien” (Hrsg.), E-Learning: Strategische Implementierungen und Studieneingang. Tagungsband 13. fnm-austria Tagung, Graz: Verlag Forum Neue Medien. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://wageneder.net/artikel/fnma-13.html

Wagner, A.C. (2006): Überlegungen zu eLearning 2.0. Retrieved October 28, 20109 from http://edufuture.de/

Wesch, M. (2008) A Portal to Media Literacy. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://www.umanitoba.ca

Williams, J.B. & Jacobs, J. (2004) Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2004, 20(2), 232-247. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http:www.eprints.qut.edu.au

Wilson (2005): Future VLE – the Visual Version. Retrieved October 28, 2010 from http://www.zope.cetis.ac.uk

http://wageneder.net/artikel/fnma-13.html

http://wageneder.net/artikel/fnma-13.html

In-d

epth

45

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s


Keywordsnetworked learning, learning scenarios, connectivism, constructivism

Recent reports would appear to herald a new world of learning, in which students are connected through technology and the internet. The increasing influence of the World Wide Web has led to fast-paced knowledge cycles and the so-called “New Millennium Learners” with supposedly different learning styles. However, in this article, we do not consider today’s youth to be “alien” to us as a result of their totally different mode of learning: they are merely seen to appropriate new ways of accessing information and socialisation, which affect their learning processes.

While we agree that the form and internal structure of learning scenarios are changing as a result of technology, the idea that a new concept of learning is emerging remains questionable. This article analyses whether the unarguably new social challenges of today are stimulating the demand for a new form of learning, and if existing theories are still applicable to today’s learning realities. In this article, we provide an overview of social changes, analyse the concept of eLearning 2.0 and outline how existing theoretical approaches capture the reality of learning.

We conclude that change has to take place in learning scenarios, given that the existing theoretical foundation has been in place and under discussion for the last two decades. Networked learning does not represent a paradigm shift or fundamentally new model of learning; rather, it describes how a consolidated concept (based on innovative ideas and building blocks of existing learning theories) can help to satisfy the demand for “new” learning scenarios, which are self-organised, learner-oriented, situational, emotional, social and communicative.

Authors Anne SteinertFOM Hochschule für Oekonomie und Management, Germany [email protected]

Ulf-Daniel EhlersUniversity Duisburg-Essen, Germany [email protected]

IntroductionThe oft-used term “new learning” largely refers to what can best be described as “networked learning”, which can be anchored in elements of already established learning theories. This “new learning” can be understood as a reinforced demand for skill development as opposed to mere knowledge acquisition. While this demand is not new, it would appear that the opportunities of networked learning promise to finally lend new relevance to the existing demand. However, the question remains as to whether a new mode of learning really does exist, or whether in fact it is merely a change in the awareness and relevance of these aspects.

Our intention is to clarify, as well as to contribute to, the conceptual definition of networked learning, which aims to serve new objectives and learning contexts.

Sum

mar

y



In-d

epth

46

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Characteristics of the “new society” In this section, we will examine more closely some of the new challenges to society and their relevance to the learning process – such as the rapid increase in the amount of information available, the growing demand for skills (employability) and new forms of access to information.

Rapid increase in the amount of information Since the internet’s rise in importance, the amount of documented knowledge available has been growing faster than ever before. Technological leaps are no longer processes extending over several generations, but rather changes that have to be dealt with several times over the course of one’s working life. These changes are not limited to a specific field; in fact, the entire working environment makes great demands on employees, due to increasing globalisation, the use of virtual tools for real-time collaborations, the rapid increase in the amount of relevant information available, the reduction of product life cycles and the resulting technological development (Mohr/Otto, 2005).

It is no longer enough to acquire a qualification at the beginning of one’s working life; instead, knowledge must be renewed steadily throughout one’s career (Prague Communiqué, 2001). Thus, those who have learned how to learn and do not only possess expert knowledge hold the advantage. The ability to make new knowledge accessible and to update expert knowledge is becoming increasingly important. Similarly, the ability to synthesise and recognise connections is becoming a crucial skill in the information age.

These two important skills for learning in the modern society are highlighted in learning theory, especially connectivism1, defined as the ability to pick out current information and to select the relevant information. Siemens describes connectivism as follows: “The capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known. Knowing where to find information is more important than knowing information” (Siemens, 2008).

Employability and the shift to skills Apart from the challenge relating to the rapid increase in information, one must also consider the fact that skills - rather than knowledge - are increasingly in

demand. Possessing knowledge is no longer considered enough to make one “employable” (Prague Communiqué, 2001; official Bologna Process website, 2007-2010); skills are intertwined with the idea of making learners “fit” for the labour market.

The concept of “employability” is not new. As a goal of higher education, it has been under discussion since the nineties, and was subsequently given considerable importance in the context of the Bologna Process (see the official Bologna Process website, 2007-2010). In today’s world, a more comprehensive definition is required, such as the one given by Blancke, Roth and Schmid: “Employability means the ability of a person to offer his/her labour on the basis of her/his expertise as well as decision-making, responsibility, value creation and productivity skills, allowing him/her to enter into and remain on the labour market” (2000, p. 9). This definition helps to clarify that there can be no general “education plan for employability” or a “public employability exam” to regulate the aims and substance of the concept. Instead, the criteria for employability must be established through the demands that exist on the labour market. Hence, employability covers three aspects regarding the labour market:

1 This can be concluded from the Prague Com-muniqué (2001) and other sources, and is also emphasised in Siemens’ Theory of Connectivism, to which we refer in more detail later.

The ability to make new knowledge accessible and to update expert knowledge is becoming increasingly important. Similarly, the ability to synthesise and recognise connections is becoming a crucial skill in the information age.

In-d

epth

47

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

1. Offer: An individual’s qualifications and skills and his/her ability to offer them on the market.

2. Entry into employment: The ability to search for, find, realise and manage employment.

3. Updating: The ongoing willingness to adapt one’s skills to the labour market’s demands.

Employability further comprises technical, methodological, social and personal skills, as well as individual attitudes, motivations and values. Besides flexibility, mobility and readiness to assume risks, self-responsibility and creativity are thus decisive.

With this in mind, Voß and Pongratz highlight the economic perspective and hence propose the term “labour entrepreneur” (Voß/Pongratz, 1998).

From a more liberal perspective, the concept of “employability” focuses more on an individual’s ability to make independent decisions and therefore strengthen his/her responsible actions, whereby concepts like “citizenship” and “civil society” are used (Boden,

Nedeva 2010: 40). Nevertheless, there are also critical voices out there. Ulrich Teichler (2008) claims that the term “employability” is misleading, suggesting “professional relevance” of educational processes as the term to be used instead.

When considering all of these aspects, one can discern a clear shift towards skills, which are also emphasised by recent regulations such as those comprising the Bologna Process and the European Qualification Framework (Reichert/Tauch, 2003).

New Millennium LearnersBesides these claims for “employability” and “skills”, a further challenge lays in the idea of “new learners” and their “new” learning style. The term “New Millennium Learners” (NML) refers to students and their “new” ways of accessing information and socialising. However, the question remains whether this is leading to the creation of “new learners” with new modes of learning. It remains debatable whether the given rationale of a truly new type of learners is the right one (Schulmeister, 2008), as today’s “Net-students” are in many respects no different from the ones who came before them. This can be underlined by the fact that peers and friendships have not lost their relevance

in the processes of individuation (Krappmann, 1993) and moral development (Keller, 2005) as a result of new technologies. New technologies are therefore to be considered communication devices, not substitutes for the communication act itself.

Thus, today’s youth do not learn in a totally different mode; they simply incorporate modern tools and methods for accessing information and socialising, and hence for the learning process. Bennett et al. (2008, p.9) explain this further: “While technology is embedded in their lives, young people’s use and skills are not uniform. There is no evidence of widespread and universal disaffection, or of a distinctly different learning style the like of which has never been seen before. … Young people may do things differently, but there are no grounds to consider them alien to us.”

In our analysis of the current challenges, we have demonstrated that the increasing influence of the internet has led to increasingly rapid knowledge cycles, which in turn are leading to a need for lifelong learning. Lifelong learning is also emphasised by the Bologna Process, which has identified a further trend – “employability” and the shift towards skills. However, the increasing influence of the internet has also led to another aspect: the

In-d

epth

48

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

New Millennium Learners and their supposedly different learning styles. We have portrayed today’s youth as not alien to us; rather, young people today use new ways of accessing information and socialising. Where change is required is in education/learning scenarios.

The move to eLearning 2.0 - New learning cultures Now that we have discussed the developments driving the demand for educational innovation, we turn our attention to the necessary change in mode from teaching to learning.

A new mode of learning? eLearning is often proposed as a methodology for meeting the challenges of new learning demands, as outlined above. While the first generation of eLearning was primarily a means of distributing information and learning materials, web 2.0 technologies in eLearning scenarios facilitates participation and interaction between students, rather than merely focusing on receptive modes of communication. However, we feel that this change in technological capacities is less important than the potential for new educational

approaches, resulting in a better fit between graduate profiles and market needs.

The demand for educational innovation is driven by the developments described above. While students in eLearning 1.0 environments were largely concerned with mastering the acquisition of knowledge, eLearning 2.0 approaches now need to step up and encourage reflection and skills development.2 Just as it is difficult to define the term “eLearning”, we can offer no concise definition of the term “eLearning 2.0”. eLearning 2.0 is not about further development, a paradigm shift, or a replacement version in the sense of a new release. Strictly speaking, it is not even a new technology, a new model of learning, or a new, separate, innovative variety of eLearning. Rather, eLearning 2.0 describes a number of developments, trends, and perspectives, which require a shift from teaching to learning. This new perspective essentially links eLearning with five characteristics:

1. Learning has become ubiquitous; it is no longer restricted to the classroom, but evolves in many different contexts;

2. Learners increasingly take on the role of organisers;

3. Learning is a lifelong process; it has many episodes, and is not (only) linked to educational institutions;

4. Learning takes place in communities of learning: Learners participate in both open and restricted communities;

5. Learning is informal and non-formal; it takes place at home, at the work place and during leisure time, and it is no longer centred around teachers or institutions.

However, while new technologies are arriving at a breakneck pace, the underlying educational scenarios are slow to respond.

In order to reap the benefits of these new possibilities, we suggest that eLearning 2.0 has to turn to skills-oriented pedagogical models. While eLearning 1.0 follows a broadcasting logic, based on the idea of teaching as a transmissive process, eLearning 2.0 comprises the creation of a new kind of learning platform, which is enhanced by social software. In the new 2.0 perspective, Learning Management Systems (LMS) serve as gates which offer students informed entries into the web. Teachers function as signposts,

eLearning 2.0 describes a number of developments, trends, and perspectives, which require a shift from teaching to learning.

2 For a more detailed definition of eLearning 1.0 and eLearning 2.0, see Ehlers, 2009b.

In-d

epth

49

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

in the way that they make micro-content available in portals, which open the door to self-directed learning. Reconfigured with the potential of web 2.0 technologies to enhance communication, collaboration, and peer-interaction, the current eLearning practice is gradually moving closer to the constructivist learning rhetoric, which is a long-term subject in pedagogical literature.

New learning cultures: Lifelong, informal, self-directedThe outlined changes also evoke new learning cultures. New forms of learning are emerging, which are self-directed, rapid, flexible and aimed at problem solving. Informal learning, “which is developed in oblique life and experience contexts outside of the formal educational institutions” (Dohmen, 2001, p.54), is once more becoming the focus of discussion.3

eLearning 2.0 is about learning in a self-directed way in social networks. From a (constructivist) learning theory perspective, advocates of eLearning 2.0 fundamentally question the “possibility of indoctrination”. This is supported by the argument that a self-directed system (learner) cannot be determined by its environment, only perturbed and stimulated by it. The concept of

Table 1. Characteristics of the Distributive and Collaborative eLearning Model (Ehlers, 2007)

eLearning model

Characteristics Distributive Collaborative

Goal of teaching/learning KnowledgeQualification

Skill

Knowledge is Stored Processed

Constructed

Paradigm ReproductionProblem solvingUnderstandingRemembering

Reflection4

Inventing new experiencesActive social practice

Technology use PresentationDistributionInformation

CollaborationCommunication

Learner’s mode of involvement

Acquisition metaphor Participation metaphor

Teacher’s role AuthorityTutor

CoachPlayer

Teacher’s activity TeachingHelpingDemonstrating

CollaborationInteraction-oriented practical experiences

Interaction type Transfer model CommunicationExchange (interaction) model

Assessment type Knowledge reproduction testMultiple choice

PerformanceSkill applicationEvidence-based assessmentE-portfolio

3 Informal learning comprises, as is known today, 70–80% of all learning activi-ties. In his latest book, Jay Cross speaks of only 10-20% of all learning being acquired in formal learning scenarios, while 80% happens through informal learning. He demands a formalising of informal learning and an informalising of formal learning. Nevertheless, formal education is given much greater significance today than informal learning (Cross, 2003).

4 Reflection on learning is a common thread going through most learning perspectives or theories to some degree. Dewey recognised it as far back as 1916, while Cowan (1998) sees reflection as a necessary pedagogical method and Kolb (1984) includes it in his experiential learning cycle (in Mayes, 2004).

In-d

epth

50

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

self-directed learning has come to be of enormous importance to eLearning 2.0 as it is understood from an educational theory perspective.

The shift from a distributive to a collaborative mode of eLearning, from a knowledge transfer model to a skills development approach, not only opens up the opportunity to make a difference, but also poses great challenges to the planning, organisation and provision of eLearning.

In addition to this, the constructivist approach opens up a second perspective on knowledge: “to acquire knowledge”, “to share knowledge” or “to solve problems in a self-guided manner” (Arnold/Schüßler 1998, p. 78). In this sense, it is important for the development of skills that learning situations are created in which self-organised, learner-oriented, situational, emotional, social and communicative learning is supported (Mandl/Krause, 2001; Zawacki/Richter, 2004). To change the eLearning mode from a distributive mode of “learning material supply logistics” to a mode of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning5 (CSCL) creates greater opportunities for learners to develop skills in authentic learning situations and social interaction (Zawacki/Richter, 2004).

Within eLearning, the potential of web 2.0 technologies have already led to a change in the learning culture: this is seen in a shift towards self-directed learning, which often takes place in social networks.

The networked learner – A new model and new (research) challengeNow that we have discussed both the developments driving the demand for educational innovation and the changes required in existing learning scenarios, we will attempt to analyse a number of building blocks taken from existing learning theories and bring together the elements that will allow us to find a suitable description of the networked nature of learning. It is our aim to establish an initial set of descriptive elements taken from existing theories, so as to capture the characteristics of “new learning” from a network perspective.

Connecting learners into a network – The perspective of connectivismAccording to the theory of connectivism, learning occurs when

a learner connects to a learning community and feeds information into it (Kop/Hill, 2008). A community is itself “a rich learning network of individuals who in themselves are completed learning networks” (Siemens, 2005, “chapter”: Types of nodes, 1st paragraph), where these individuals can be understood as nodes, or connective elements. Consequently, a community consists of nodes and is (usually) at the same time a node itself, which is in turn part of a larger network.

Connections can be seen as being key to networked learning, where understanding arises through the application of meta-cognition in selecting and evaluating the network’s elements to maintain the useful ones and eliminate the rest. In this sense, learning and understanding are seen as equivalent to the “process of creating connections”. Learning is an active “knowledge creation process”, not a passive “knowledge consumption process”.

Furthermore, networks enable learners to work and learn in an interdisciplinary manner. Here, learners are confronted with an environment that enables them to access new knowledge easily and update expert knowledge efficiently. This complexity supports the learner

5 Cf. Footnote 1.

In-d

epth

51

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

in the development of skills, as both comprehensive thinking and the ability to select and evaluate (i.e. active and constructive processes) are constantly required. As Siemens states, “the ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill” (2008), a fact which becomes increasingly important in the case of lifelong learning. But cognition is not the only aspect that contributes to the learning process; the affective domains, i.e. emotions, are also essential for a holistic learning process, according to connectivism theory.

In short, the connectivism approach helps to master the developments driving the demand for educational innovation, in that it reinforces more active and constructive learning situations as well as social interaction, thereby bringing about the required change in learning scenarios from a distributive mode to a collaborative/connected mode.

Connectivism does not warrant being treated as a fundamental new learning theory, but it nevertheless contributes to social and communicative learning by

indicating the relevance of networks for learning.

Analysing networked learning – A social network analysis perspective The concept of networked learning deals with similar ideas as connectivism (4.1) and constructivist learning (4.3), but is also based on social network analysis.

Although the terms “social networks” and “learning communities” are often used interchangeably, there is a slight difference. Granovetter (1973) addresses the closeness of social relationships: close friends and relatives fall under the category of “strong ties”, whereas examples of “weak ties” would be acquaintances or colleagues. Generally speaking, weak ties are not exclusively connected to a single network, but instead serve as “bridges” between different networks. This characteristic makes them more appropriate for networking aims, as they both possess more information and are able to share this information more easily through their further contacts. Weak ties are less “invention-intensive”, and so one is able to sustain more of these connections (than strong ones), which creates more opportunities to access further resources (Seibert et al., 2001).

Communities are entities with a high degree of overlap in interests, close connections and steady continuity. Networks, on the contrary, are more distinct, have a more sporadic or episodic nature and (more often) enable new ideas and discoveries (Ehlers, 2009a). The concept of networked learning builds on this idea, as it allows learners to integrate informal network elements into their more formal learning communities to achieve more authentic learning situations and social interaction processes.

Burt (1992) focuses on holistic relationship patterns instead of observing relationships between single actors, like Granovetter. Burt (1992,1997) looks at the “indirect ties”, which are the connections available through one’s own connections. Burt named this the “structural hole” approach. A structural hole exists if two stakeholders in one network are not directly connected, a condition which offers the same advantage as weak ties in Granovetter’s theory: it enables stakeholders to access new resources, allowing information to be reached faster and more effectively. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Seibert et al. (2001) showed that both the closeness of relations and the number of structural holes

In-d

epth

52

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

influence the social resources of an individual.

Translated to learning scenarios, weak ties/structural holes are particularly important, as they facilitate the process of bringing peripheral influences and new information and ideas into the interaction and learning of closer social networks (i.e. communities). Consequently, weak ties can serve as bridges between individuals from different contexts, whereby they help to transmit innovative ideas and knowledge into communities (Ehlers, 2009a). Through these informal aspects, learners are more engaged in self-organised, social and communicative learning.

Overall, networked learning leads to self-directed learning in social networks through the integration of the internet in learning processes.

An improved definition might therefore read as follows: “networked learning occurs through both an active exchange of knowledge between entities, which are preferably connected through weak ties with many structural holes, and a process of self-guided social interaction,

and can lead to an informalising of formal structures”.

Networked learning from a collaborative learning perspectiveAlthough the above ideas incorporate new aspects into networked learning, it can be anchored in conceptual elements of collaborative learning, which in turn are based on constructivism and situated learning approaches (which pick up the constructivism perspective).

There are basically four main approaches that highlight learning as a constructive process:

− Jean Piaget’s constructivism radically changed the understanding of learning processes and proved ground-breaking for constructivism theory. In his approach, assimilation and accommodation are essential to conceive the creation of the structure of human reality.

− Lew S. Vygotsky largely shared Piaget’s views, but placed more emphasis on the cultural learning environment and came to the conclusion that learning, which is based mainly on imitation, includes a constructive and creative learning process.

− John Dewey’s work is elementary for pedagogical constructivism, as it tries to anchor learning processes in concrete actions as well as in learning environments. With his pragmatic learning theory, Dewey highlighted the comprehensive relevance of independence and self-determination. Dewey supported learning through doing, which is guided through interest and comprehensible motives instead of through solely theoretical and cognitive learning.

− Jerome S. Bruner forced Vygotsky’s approach to highlight the aspect of social learning as a frame for individual learning. He broadened Piaget’s constructivism through the addition of the dimension of social interactions.

From these four main approaches, six basic assumptions for constructivist learning can be made (Reinmann-Rothmeier/Mandl, 2001): the learning process is seen to be an active, constructive, emotional, self-guided, social and situative process. In other words: learning develops from action, action takes place in social situations, and hence thinking and cognition are situational (Schulmeister, 2002). These are the very aspects supported and demanded by networked learning.

…we have been able to establish that the demand, or rather relevance, for new educational concepts can be satisfied through the consolidated concept of networked learning.

In-d

epth

53

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

To sum up, networked learning (Fig. 1) is not about a paradigm shift or a fundamentally new model of learning. It describes a concept consisting of diff erent elements: both new concepts (connectivism) and building blocks from existing theories (such as Granovetter’s social network analysis or collaborative learning concepts), with due consideration for the opportunities off ered by new technologies and tools. What is new, however, is the relevance of the demand for “new” learning scenarios and skills, which can be brought together in a consolidated concept: networked (connected) learning.

ConclusionIn this article, we have shown that in periods of technological and conceptual change, it is especially important to consolidate concepts and validate their innovative nature. In doing so, we have been able to establish that the demand, or rather relevance, for new educational concepts can be satisfi ed through the consolidated concept of networked learning.

We would like to conclude the article accordingly with the following fi ve points:

− This demand is not new so much as its relevance, as most of it has been

Figure 1. Networked Learning Concept

around and under discussion for the past ten to twenty years.

− New learning can be understood as involving a reinforced demand for skills as well as the notion of networked learning, which enables learners to be in contact with each other through technology.

− Networked learning shows that existing theories, under consideration

of innovative concepts, are suitable for comprehending and analysing emerging trends.

− Networked learning helps to shift the learning mode from mere distribution to collaboration, which enhances self-organised, learner-oriented, situational, emotional, social and communicative learning situations.

Read more


In-d

epth

54

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

References Bennett, S. & Maton, K.& Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, volume 39 issue 5, 775-786, retrieved November 13, 2009 from www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121382130/issue.

Blancke, S. & Roth, Ch. & Schmid, J. (2000). Employabilität („Beschäftigungsfähigkeit“) als Herausforderung für den Arbeitsmarkt. Stuttgart (Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Baden-Württemberg. Arbeitsbericht 157).

Boden, R. & Nedeva, M.(2010). Employing discourse: universities and graduate ‘employability’. In: Journal of Education Policy, Volume 25, Issue 1 January 2010 , pages 37 - 54

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burt, R. S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339-365.

Cowan J. (1998). On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher Reflection in Action, SRHE/OU.

Cross, Jay (2003). Informal Learning – the other 80%. Internet Time Group, website, retrieved November 11, 2009 from www.internettime.com/Learning/The%20other%2080%25.htm.

Dohmen Günter (2001). Das informelle Lernen – Die internationale Erschließung einer bisher vernachlässigten Grundform menschlichen Lernens für das lebenslange Lernen aller, retrieved November 14, 2009 from www.bmbf.de/pub/das_informelle_lernen.pdf.

Ehlers, U.-D. (2007). Making the Difference in E-Learning: Towards Competence Development and E-Irritation. In Bernath, U. (Eds.): Research in distance education and online learning, ASF Series, Oldenburg.

Ehlers, U.-D. (2009a). Learning Communities and Networks: Innovation and Quality for new Learningscapes. Eden Conference 2009.

Ehlers, U.-D. (2009b). Web 2.0 – E-Learning 2.0 – Quality 2.0? Quality for new Learning Cultures. International Journal for Quality Assurance in education 17 (3), 296-314. Emerald

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.

Keller, M. (2005). Moralentwicklung und moralische Sozialisation. In: D. Horster, J. Oelkers (Eds.): Pädagogik und Ethik. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, 149–172.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice-Hall.

Kopp, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? In the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 9, No 3.

Krappmann, L. (1993). Soziologische Dimensionen der Identität. Klett-Cotta: Stuttgart (1st ed. 1971).

Mandl, H. & Krause, U.-M. (2001). Lernkompetenz für die Wissensgesellschaft. Research Report No. 145, München.

Mayes, T. & De Freitas, S. (2004). ‘Review of e-learning theories, frameworks and models’, commissioned review report as part of the JISC-funded e-pedagogy desk study on e-learning models, retrieved November 12, 2009 from www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Stage%202%20Learning%20Models%20%28Version%201%29.pdf.

Mohr, G. & otto, K. (2005), Schöne neue Arbeitswelt: Risiken und Nebenwirkungen. Report Psychologie 30, retrieved November 18, 2009 from psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2005/520/pdf/pdf14.pdf.

Official Bologna Process website 2007-2010. Retrieved December 13, 2009 from www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/actionlines/employability.htm

Prague Communiqué (2001). Retrieved December 13, 2009 from www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/010519PRAGUE_CoMMUNIQUE.PDF

Reichert, S. & Tauch, C. (2003). Trends in Learning structures in European Higher Education III - Bologna fours year after: Steps towards sustainable reform of higher education in Europe. Draft Summary – EUA Graz Convention 29/31 May 2003.

http://psydok.sulb.uni-saarland.de/volltexte/2005/520/pdf/pdf14.pdf

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/actionlines/employability.htm

http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/actionlines/employability.htm

http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/010519PRAGUE_COMMUNIQUE.PDF

http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00-Main_doc/010519PRAGUE_COMMUNIQUE.PDF

Reinmann-Rothmeier, G. & Mandl, H. (2001). Unterrichten und Lernumgebungen gestalten. In A. Krapp & B. Weidenmann (Eds.), Pädagogische Psychologie, Weinheim: Beltz, 601- 646.

Schulmeister, R. (2002). Virtuelle Universitäten und die Virtualisierung der Hochschulbildung - Argumente und Konsequenzen. In: Issing, L.J.; Stärk, G. (Eds): Studieren mit Multimedia und Internet. Ende der traditionellen Hochschule oder Innovationsschub? (Medien in der Wissenschaft; 16) Münster, New York: Waxmann, 129-145.

Schulmeister, R. (2008). Gibt es eine »Net Generation«? - Work in Progress, retrieved November 12, 2009 from www.zhw.uni-hamburg.de/pdfs/Schulmeister_Netzgeneration.pdf.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L. & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2), 219-237.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as Network Creation, website, retrieved November 11, 2009 from www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm.

Siemens, G. (2008). About: Description of connectivism. Connectivism: A learning theory for today’s learner, website, retrieved November 11, 2009 from www.connectivism.ca/about.html.

Teichler, U. (2008). Vortrag “Employability” and the Curriculum, The Future of Employment and Work of University Graduates and of the Character of Bachelor Programmes, León.

Zawacki-Richter, o. (2004). Organisationsstrukturen für e-Learning Support: Eine Analyse aus internationaler Sicht. In D. Euler & S. Seufert (Eds.) E-Learning in Hochschulen und Bildungszentren. Gestaltungshinweise für pädagogische Innovationen, München: Oldenbourg, 105-120.

From the fi eld

Experiences with technologies in learning environments

Playing with Science Hands-on and High-Tech Learning in a Portuguese Kindergarten

Defi ning Quality Hellenic Evaluation tool for School Internet Sites

Understanding the stakeholders A key to the successful implementation of adult learning projects

eLearning Hellenic Evaluation tool for School Internet Sites

eLearning Hellenic Evaluation tool for School Internet Sites

Understanding the stakeholders

eLearning Understanding the stakeholders A key to the successful implementation of adult

eLearning A key to the successful implementation of adult learning projects

eLearning learning projects

PaperseLearning

PaperseLearning eLearning

www.elearningpapers.eueLearning


PaperseLearning

PaperseLearning www.elearningpapers.eueLearning

PaperseLearning 2010

Fro

m t

he

fi el

d57

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

eLearning 2010

Playing with ScienceHands-on and High-Tech Learning in a Portuguese Kindergarten

This project was a comparative analysis that looked at the advantages of using multimedia or hands-on methods for teaching science in Kindergarten. Concrete and virtual laboratories were created and their use was observed in three diff erent classrooms and compared to exercises that did not use this technology.

Keywords Science education, early childhood education, learning games, computers, multimedia

Kindergarten is the place par excellence of child development. It off ers children a new and increasingly broad range of experiences, where they may try out diff erent modalities of contact.

It is an experiential place, based on sensory expansion and relational and intellectual openness. Therefore, Kindergarten plays a role in mediating at the cultural level; it infl uences children’s contacts and their understanding of reality, stimulating learners’ emotional level, their psychomotor skills, and intellectual and linguistic capabilities.

The main aim of this research has been to provide solutions for improving science learning in kindergarten. Early education teachers, who are often trained in humanities, tend to neglect science because they

do not feel comfortable with the material. However, we know that it is advantageous to acquaint children with science and technology at an early age, exposing pupils to daily phenomena.

By using straightforward language and simple, fun experiments, we can encourage young learners to study and understand the science present in their daily lives.

In addition to hands-on experiments, we also used the computer as an educational tool. We strived to take advantage of the opportunities of using technology and tried to make the unfolding microworld both real and virtual.

For this research, we selected four experiments to be explored by both technological and hands-on methods.

Paula Maria Cunha Figueiras dos Reis de oliveira CarquejaUniversity of Porto, [email protected]

Author

For these experiments we drafted a multimedia software application and created materials for the hands-on activities.

Although the small sample size of the study prohibits us from generalizing the fi ndings, we believe that they can off er an indication of the diffi culties encountered in the fi eld, and provide key ideas for developing a more detailed, qualitative study in the future.

Science for FunIn order to develop the classroom experiments, we took into consideration local policies for school objectives that are currently in place.

We also drew from the book series Science for Fun (PROVIDÊNCIA, C.; ALBERTO H.; FIOLHAIS. C. - Ciência a Brincar - Bizâncio. Sociedade Portuguesa de Física, 2ª Edição, 2000; PROVIDÊNCIA, C.; Reis S. l. - Ciência a Brincar 2 - Bizâncio. Sociedade Portuguesa de Física, 2ª Edição, 2001; PROVIDÊNCIA, C.; COSTA B.; FIOLHAIS. C. - Brincar com água, brincar com ciência. Sociedade Portuguesa de Física, Delegação

Read more

www.elearningeuropa.info/playingwithscience


Fro

m t

he

fiel

d58

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Regional do Centro, 2001.) These books were our starting point for the study and we selected the following experiments from them to carry out in the schools:

1. Sink or float?

2. How do flowers drink water?

3. What are balloons filled with?

4. What is a volcano?

This study involved 68 children from 3 schools near Porto, Lisbon. After excluding children under five years old, only 48 children were selected: 21 children from CEPI - Centro de Infância e Protecção Infantil, 14 from the Colégio Julio Dinis and 13 children from the das Medas Kindergarten.

In order to study the effects of using an innovative strategy while playing with science, in comparison to using a traditional strategy, observations were made and information on the groups was collected. For recording the observations, we constructed rubrics, as well as questionnaires / registration forms. For the pre-test and post-test, we took care to illustrate questions with meaningful images, decreasing the risk that children misunderstand the questions they were asked.

For this study, the data were subjected to either quantitative or qualitative analysis. For the quantitative work, a data analysis model was constructed in SPSS1 11.0, consisting of 124 variables. The descriptive analysis of responses in the control group was based on quantitative-qualitative method

that draws from methodological triangulation (cf. Manion, L. & Cohen, L. 1990), where qualitative analysis allowed us to take into account the essential character embodied in the techniques used, namely: observation and interviews, and quantitative analysis was used for the questionnaires and observation rubrics.

With regard to using multimedia or more traditional teaching strategies, the results have shown that there is no advantage to using the multimedia exercises. Rather, the most important step for educators is to provide enough stimulation for children to stay awake and pay attention to what is around them, although this simulation could be virtual or hands-on.

We played with science in both contexts, with physical and virtual experiments. We found that in the context of concrete experiences, during hands-on activities, children manipulate, observe, smell and feel the phenomena. In the context of virtual experiences, children interact with science through the image. We conclude from our study that the inclusion of information technology in the kindergarten room in preschool education is justified. The computer alone can serve as a stimulus for some children. On the other hand, we must be aware of the limitations technology can impose on the type of possible activities, which may lead to a disinterest in the subject.

We saw that the children really enjoyed the science activities, both in the hands-on and virtual contexts. We found that each method was useful, with one not taking precedence over the other. We also observed that educators were not as enthusiastic about the hands-on activities, possibly because of lack of training or the general confusion that arose in the classroom during the activities.

Because virtual activities were appreciated by teachers, we believe they may be helpful for getting educators to introduce Science into their classrooms.

Finally, we confirm that science in early education teaches pupils how to observe, make hypotheses, test, and draw conclusions. The project of education through play, science and technology, led by educators, is a realistic venture.

Sink or float? How do flowers drink? What fills up a balloon?

What is a volcano?

Fro

m t

he

fiel

d59

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Defining QualityHellenic Evaluation tool for School Internet Sites

A school website can establish the identity and presence of a school within the wider field of education. It is a place where the basic and fundamental services/functions of the school are provided (Sofos, 2007) and may at times prove to be a synergistic tool for communication, information and learning (Ntrenoyanni, 2001). It can be thought of as a tool that promotes the school, while connecting it to its community.

Although school websites have the potential to fulfil a range of activities,

designing, developing and maintaining them is still in its infancy. In light of the concern about the notion of school website quality, which is multifaceted and controversial, a framework of model “Quality Principles” is needed. Our study examined evaluation criteria used in Greece and the rest of the world, and explored whether it is complete.

This research in its entirety aimed to: 1) determine core and partial school website objectives and functions; 2) define quality by analysing school website features and components; 3) list

Dr. Alivisos SofosPrimary Education Department, University of the [email protected]

Aikaterini AlexopoulouPrimary Education Department, University of the [email protected]

This study analysed school website quality by identifying key concepts, based on a critical, comparative study of pertinent international bibliography and developed a tool that allows for a more effective and objective evaluation of quality in this area. HETSI Sites (Hellenic Evaluation Tool for School Internet Sites), assessed in November 2009, is based on graduated evaluation criteria (Rubrics) that take into account current evaluation tools in both Greece and abroad. We hope the concepts and notions the tool uses serve as a compass both for the evaluation and for the creation of “quality” school websites

Keywords school websites, quality principles, evaluation criteria

Authors

evaluation criteria based on a review of international bibliography; 4) indicate commonly acceptable criteria and/or differences and discrepancies between them; and 5) develop a new evaluation tool associated with validated assessment criteria for reliability and credibility. For a more detailed description on all stages of the research, please see the full report. (CITATION)

What works? Existing and new criteria The survey may be broken down in four distinct stages: bibliographical research and preliminary analysis; qualitative approach and drafting a list of criteria; experimental application of the criteria to achieve qualitative assessment; and criteria re-examination.

Bibliographical sources were extensively researched, focusing mostly on bibliography from the EU and the US, in addition to relevant Greek bibliography. Data was mainly from

Read more

www.elearningeuropa.info/definingquality



Fro

m t

he

fiel

d60

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

primary sources, wherever available. The next stage involved a qualitative approach, our interpretation of the outcome of bibliographical research produced a series of interesting results regarding quality standards for cultural websites and school and education websites, as well as evaluation criteria for school and educational portals. Meta-analysis of the results revealed the existence of evaluation criteria (such as the validity of data, content quality, etc.) which are commonly used in various countries. Based on this research, a ‘joint framework of criteria’ was put in place, in the form of an “Evaluation Criteria Tool”.

The final research stages involved the experimental use and re-examination of the evaluation tool to help assess current school websites. A total of ten websites were evaluated using the HETSI Sites tool. Members of all 5 research teams were postgraduate students of the Department for Education & Teaching by Means of New Technologies, University of the Aegean.

User-friendly guidelinesIn order to develop HETSI Sites, we drafted a list of criteria for the evaluation tool based on our preliminary analysis. A comparative examination and analysis/synthesis approach to the evaluation criteria led to an improved and bibliographically validated tool that can guarantee school website quality.

Initially, “10 Quality Principles” were defined that allowed us to outline the notion of school website quality in quantifiable terms. These principles were: (1)Transparency (Ownership, Mission statement, Clear Objectives); (2)Content structure and presentation; (3)Maintenance - Updating – Timeliness; (4)Accessibility – Navigation; (5)Technical Excellence; (6)Aesthetics - Set up - Web Design; (7)Educational & Teaching utilization; (8)Feedback - Interaction; (9)Multilingualism; (10)Security & Copyright.

The tool is founded on a type of descriptive grading which is feasible through the use of Rubrics (Andrade, 1997). For the tool, each of the ten quality principles is described and structured as a Rubric (graded evaluation criteria). Each rubric is divided into a set of components that reflect key characteristics of the principle. Evaluators rate each component on a scale of 1 – 10, based on three different levels: 0-4: “Incomplete/ E-Bookmark”; 5-7: “Basic / E-Visiting Card”; 8-10: “Complete / E-Learning”.

Once drafted, the tool was tested during a the trial period allowed us to detect problems and address needed improvements in order to improve the tool from a qualitative perspective. The new evaluation tool that emerged as the end result of this project was based on the findings of this experimental evaluation. The result is an effective school website evaluation tool, which can also serve as a guideline for the construction or self-evaluation of such websites.

The most important positive outcome of the testing phase was the lack of discrepancies in the results that different teams gave the websites, pointing towards the possibility of achieving objective evaluations. However, there is room for further improvement; some individual characteristics are missing, compromising compliance with all the qualitative features an the way criteria are formulated and used need to be revised, to establish a more user-friendly way of grading. However, we believe that the initial testing has shown that the rubrics used for evaluation and self-assessment purposes mostly in the USA provide an effective evaluation method.

HETSI Sites: an evaluation toolThis study summarises School Website Quality by identifying key concepts based on a critical, comparative study of pertinent international bibliography. We hope the concepts and notions can act as a compass both for evaluation and

ReferencesNtrenoyanni A. (2001). «Pedagogical Utilisation of internet services», article published in Virtual School, The sciences of Education Online, vol. 2, issues 2-3 [online]: www.auth.gr/virtualschool/2.2-3/Praxis/DrenoyanniCyberPedagogy.html.

Sofos A. (2007). Strategies for presenting primary education schools on the internet: The example of Athens».

Goodrich-Andrade,H.G (1997). «Understanding rubrics. Educational Leadership».

for those who wish to create a “quality” school website.

Another major part of this survey addressed the sufficiency and completeness of existing evaluation criteria that have already been consolidated and are currently being used in Greece, after the “Panhellenic school website Evaluation Competition”. Objectivity and accuracy in grading with the existing tool was checked, and a comparative study of international bibliographical references proved that the tool is quite sufficient.

School websites are a useful tool in today’s world, creating a marked school presence and increasing visibility via the internet. Still in their infancy, they have great promise and are expected to become widely used for communication and education purposes. In the US, sites are more visible and well-known, due to strong institutional support at the state level. In Europe, more emphasis is placed on synergies and cooperation in making such sites, and their use for pedagogical purposes. We believe that, in addition to reliably evaluation tools such as HETSI Sites, it would be useful to have a clear-cut quality standard developed at the state level, compliance with which would guarantee a school website quality.

Fro

m t

he

fiel

d61

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Understanding the stakeholders A key to the successful implementation of adult learning projects

Ari-Matti Auvinen [email protected] PartnerHCI Productions Oy, Helsinki, FinlandProject ManagerHelsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland

Lyn Waddington Senior Research Co-ordinatorRISE, University of Wales Newport, United Kingdom

Michela MorettiFormer Head of the Evaluation and Training Design UnitScienter, Bologna, Italy Officer of the International Relations Department University of Bologna, Italy

Claudio DondiPresidentScienter, Bologna, Italy

Thomas FischerCoordinating Senior Researcher - Methodology Development & Intergenerational Learning

Institute for Innovation in Learning (FIM NewLearning)Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, GermanyDan JonssonManager - Adult LearningCFL - Centre for Flexible Learning Municipality of Söderhamn, Sweden

Thomas KretschmerCoordinating Senior Researcher - Social InclusionInstitute for Innovation in Learning (FIM NewLearning)Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

Sven-olof Larsson Project Manager CFL - Centre for Flexible Learning Municipality of Söderhamn, Sweden

Stefan Wiik Project CoordinatorCFL - Centre for Flexible Learning Municipality of Söderhamn, Sweden

This report discusses the development and application of stakeholder analysis (SHA) in Adult Learning Centres. The research aimed to develop a unique quality approach to formal and informal learning provided by adult learning centres. One obtained outcome was a sound basis for subsequent network building activities, as well as a model for SHA in the educational sphere.

Keywords stakeholders, stakeholder analysis, quality assurance, adult learning

The use of stakeholder analysis (SHA) methodologies within the area of adult education has yet to find widespread application, even if it is widely viewed as a critical management tool for improving Quality Assurance (QA) activities.

Authors

One key aim of the EU-funded QUALC (Quality Assurance Network for Adult Learning Centres) project was to develop a unique quality approach to formal and informal learning provided by adult learning centres (ALCs) using SHA.

The understanding of the various stakeholders and their roles was seen as a critical success factor for the objective of the project.

SHA is not one technique, but rather a range of various techniques, and the methodology adapted for use within QUALC employed four critical stages: a) stakeholder identification; b) stakeholder classification; c) mapping the influence of the stakeholders and the interest of the stakeholders; d) contextualising the significance of the stakeholders’ position and perspective with regard to adult learning (see e.g. Bryson, 2004a; Bryson, 2004b; Varvasovszky – Brugha 2000).

Read more

www.elearningeuropa.info/understandingstakeholders










Fro

m t

he

fiel

d62

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Key stakeholdersDuring the initial stage, the key issue was to identify and analyse the different people or groups (the “stakeholders”) that would be potentially affected by the results of the proposed activities. Departing from traditional management approaches to SHA, in the QUALC project, the individual learner was placed at the centre of the analysis. Two other important aspects in the stakeholder work was the attention paid to municipal or regional actors, as these often have a critical role both in the funding of the operations of adult learning centers, and the recognition of the different roles of different stakeholders.

The key stakeholders identified in QUALC were: learners, Adult Learning Centres, municipal / local actors, regional actors, national networks, national stakeholders, European stakeholders. See Figure 1.

Stakeholders were then classified as either primary or secondary (see e.g. Bryson, 2004a; Bryson, 2004b; Clarkson, 1995). According to Clarkson’s definition, the primary stakeholder groups are ones without whose continuing participation the corporation cannot survive. The secondary stakeholders are those who influence or affect (or are influenced or affected by) the corporation, but they are not engaged in transactions with the corporation and are not essential for its survival.

By identifying primary and secondary stakeholders, QUALC was able to understand which entities and actors to approach (and the order in which to approach them) in the project’s subsequent stages of network building. Of interest, is that all national reports eminating from the QUALC

Figure 1. Stakeholders in adult learning

partners emphasized that the primary stakeholders are the learners. However, the learners in adult learning centres whilst being central, do not often have a decisive power.

Primary stakeholders identified in the QUALC project were: adult learners;

European stakeholders

European stakeholders

National stakeholders

National stakeholders

National networks of ALCs

National networks of quality assurance

Municipalities / local actors

ALC

ALC

Regional actors

Learning individual

Fro

m t

he

fiel

d63

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

adult learning supporters (teachers, facilitators, supporters); adult learning centres (including also informal settings); adult learning organizations; adult education agencies and networks.

Secondary stakeholders identified were: Local and regional administrations and governments; local actors (NGOs, local SMEs, local third sector); national ministries (including financing agencies); national associations and networks; employers’ associations and trade unions; regional and national bodies; European actors.

Stakeholder dynamics: relationships based on power and interestThe third stage was to analyse the positions and views of the stakeholders and thus to construct a view of their ‘relative importance’ and reveal the dynamics between different actors. We used a power / interest matrix (see Figure 2) , as it provided a comprehensive tool to present stakeholders’ positions.

The results of the stakeholder analysis presented in the matrix established that minimal effort should be directed on stakeholders with low interest and little power. The needs of stakeholders with low power / high interest should be addressed through information

distribution. Gaining their support through lobbying can be a good tactic, because they can be valuable allies in influencing the attitudes of other, more powerful stakeholders. The low interest / high power stakeholders – typically legislative bodies – are often the ones who are the most difficult to communicate and plan with. They are generally quite passive, but might unexpectedly exercise their power in reaction to a particular event. Finally, having the approval of key players with high interest and power is crucial to the success of any strategic development.

Regarding this power / interest matrix it is interesting to discuss the position of adult learners. As the final beneficiaries of a working quality assurance system, they should play a crucial role also in determining the quality of a learning experience and learning provision. However, not all learners are able to participate to such a quality discourse. There is a need to improve “quality literacy” amongst learners in order to make them able to choose the provision which suits their needs and to enable them to engage in dialogue with the learning providers before, during and after the learning (see also Eagle – Brennan, 2007). Learners need to have the skills to engage in reflective and constructive critique of their learning experience and environment.

SHA for a learner-centred approachThe review of current stakeholder analysis literature reveals that SHA can be applied to the adult learning context as a new and emerging methodological tool. QUALC has successfully utilised this approach to developing a new Quality Assurance model which can be applied to adult community-based learning across Europe.

In conceptualizing the stakeholder approach, the key role of adult learners was emphasized and the stakeholder management actions were studied to improve their learning opportunities and activities. In designing new services (such as the quality assurance systems for adult learning centres), the key factor is to involve learners and other key users in learning, QUALC concluded that this will significantly enhance organisational change and improvement.

The success of new developments and initiatives for quality assurance in adult learning requires the acceptance and support of many different stakeholders. The initial step in building the basis for successful improvement of learning, is to understand who the stakeholders are, what their preferences are and what their relative power and interest is.

Fro

m t

he

fiel

d64

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

ReferencesBrugha, R. – Varvasovszky, Z.(2000), Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy and Planning, 15, 239 – 246.

Bryson, J.M. (2004a), Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. Third Edition. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bryson, J.M. (2004b), What to Do When Stakeholders Matter. Public Management Review, 6, 21-53.

Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995), A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.

Eagle, L. – Brennan, R. (2007), Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education, 15, 44-60.

QUALC website, at www.efquel.org/qualc (read on 30 September 2010)

Varvasovszky, Z. – Brugha, R.(2000), How to do (or not to do). A Stakeholder analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 15, 338 – 345.

Figure 2: Power – interest matrix of the QUALC project

Pow

er/I

nfluen

ce Hig

h

C.�Keep�satisfiedMinistries (of education, employment, trade and industry)Regional and local administrations Governmental agenciesEmployers associations and trade unionsLocal actors (including NGOs and SMEs)

D.�Key�playersAdult learning providers (including also informal learning providers)Adult learning teachers, tutors and supportersAgencies and networks for adult education

Low

A.�Minimal�effort B.�Keep�informedAdult learnersAdult learning organizationsNational agenciesRegional bodiesEuropean actors

High Low

Level�of�interest

65

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

InterviewFor this issue, eLearning Papers interviewed Christine Redecker and Paul A. Kir-schner. They are consortium members in the project “The Future of Learning: New Ways to Learn New Skills for Future Jobs” and the editors of the report Mapping Major Changes to Education and Training in 2025.

Since its publication, their project involving mapping changes in education has en-tered into a new phase of consultations, broadening the parameters of the conver-sation and inviting participation from other stakeholders. We spoke with Redecker and Kirschner to find out what the project is doing now, and what vision of future learning is emerging from this research.

Christine Redecker

Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), based in Seville (Spain).

Her research activities focus on the potential of ICT for Learning, Innovation and Creativity, but she is also involved in research projects on ICT for Inclusion and Health.

Recently she has completed a major research project on “Learning 2.0”(http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/Learning-2.0.html), investigating the potential of social media to enhance learning opportunities both in and outside of formal education and training.

Paul A. Kirschner

Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies at the Open University of the Netherlands.

He is an internationally recognized expert in his field. He has been elected to both the CSCL Board (within the International Society for the Learning Sciences) and the Executive Committee of the Society of which he is the President in 2010. He was selected to the Scientific Technical Council of the Foundation for University Computing Facilities (SURF WTR), carried out an associate editorship of the highly ranked journal Computers in Human Behavior.



Inte

rvie

w66

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Your project “The Future of Learning: New Ways to Learn New Skills for Future Jobs” is interested in the educational landscape of tomorrow. Can you describe how you approached this topic?

Christine�Redecker:

Understanding the future of learning cannot be done in isolation, therefore, our project is based on intensive and different stakeholder consultations: by the expert panel consulted in course of the Group Concept Mapping Exercise, in our online consultations with a total of more than 150 experts, in our two day expert workshop with 20 experts from all over Europe and by EU policy makers who were also consulted on two occasions.

Drawing from your research at this stage, where do you anticipate the biggest changes? How will tomorrow’s classrooms be different from what we have today?


We could say that the most important changes are that in the future, learning will not primarily take place in the closed environment of a classroom and in a dedicated period in one’s life, while going to “school”. Rather, everybody will learn during the whole course of a lifetime, from the cradle to the grave, as some put it. Learning will be a natural daily activity for us, just like eating and drinking or watching television. At the same time it will become a basic need: Given that job requirements and profiles are expected to change at increasing rates, people will need to constantly update their skills and to flexibly respond to changing situations by quickly acquiring relevant skills. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are a key element in enabling people to learn in a lifelong and lifewide learning continuum. One of the biggest and most important challenges is to make sure that our existing education and training systems are transformed so that people can learn what they need to learn, when they need it and in the most suitable and convenient way, tailored to their individual needs.

Of course, all these elements require quite some analysis, and action. A number of questions arise, that we do not have an answer to, yet. For example: What do future learners need to know – for future jobs? – as citizens in a global, networked, digital world? Personalised learning requires personalised teaching – what would this look like? What are the consequences for learning outcomes, curricula and assessment? If education is to open up towards informal and non formal learning, how will this kind of learning be recognized? How can we make sure that everybody benefits from future learning, especially those who are currently left behind? etc. The Future of Learning project looks into all these questions and tries to give some answers, by considering in particular how technologies will contribute to driving and responding to change.

In the diagram of clusters published in the report “Imagining future learning. Mapping Major Changes to Education and Training in 2025”, we can observe that life-long learning emerges as a large, central theme. Could we read its central appearances as a trend for the future of education? Is life-long learning a new model for education in the 21st century?

Paul�Kirschner:

As researcher of LLL at an institution for LLL my answer is No and Yes. The answer is No because LLL really isn’t new. Informally we have always learned throughout out lifetimes – from cradle to grave. As long as our brains function properly we constantly learn. Non-formally we have always taken part in conscious attempts to learn more, often phrased as bring ourselves further or improving, in a context where there was no formal recognised certification given or desired. And formally, institutions for continuing education that grant or award recognised certification exist and have been used for more than a century. In other words, it’s an old model. The answer is Yes because of the increasing perception of LLL as desirable, relevant and necessary in 21st century economies, societies, sciences, technologies, et cetera.

Learning will be a natural daily activity for us, just like eating and drinking or watching television.

Understanding the future of learning cannot be done in isolation.

Inte

rvie

w67

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Part of your research has involved asking experts to comment on changes that would lead to the development a different set of skills and capacities in learners. What is the role of competences, when thinking about the design and implementation of education in the future?


Our research insights suggest that transversal skills, such as learning to learn, collaboration, self-regulation, analytical, hermeneutic and critical thinking will become more important, as well as digital competence, or the critical and confident use of ICT. In other words, from the three ingredients that create competence – knowledge, skills and attitudes – knowledge will become less important, while skills and attitudes will determine how successful people will master their (professional) lives.

This is not to say that people will not need to acquire knowledge. However, in an era of accelerating change it becomes increasingly important to keep up with change. This requires skills that are currently not at the focus of training practices, and also not prominent in formal education and training. Hence, one of the main findings of our research, with respect to school and university education, is that students need to be better prepared for their tasks as lifelong learners. They need to be trained in collaboration and analytical and critical thinking.

Knowing how to learn effectively is far more important than, for example, memorizing extensive amounts of data that are irrelevant to their lives. It is the creative and innovative use of knowledge that is becoming more and more important.

Also in the report we saw that, in a reverse of the perspective on pedagogical innovation, technological changes were considered easy to achieve but less important. The report ventured that one probable explanation for this result is that the participants perceived technology and open education as merely means for learning. Could you elaborate further?

Paul�Kirschner:

We are long past the stage where we think of technology and technological development as being something special or as an obstacle. Inexpensive and ubiquitous availability and use of technology is taken for granted – and by some as a fundamental right and primary necessity of life - as is the idea that new possibilities and developments will continue to come in an ever-increasing tempo. It is also the case that the idea that all the necessary information we need to learn both new things as well as to update and upgrade our knowledge is “out there”, and available for the plucking, has become widely accepted by the general population. Thus, we can see that tools involving technology are taken for granted and have come to be seen as non-important or even trivial.

The clusters that emerged from your research seem to reveal a shift of responsibility in education from institutions to individuals. What does this shift tell us?

Paul�Kirschner:

Though I am not a sociologist, I think that the shift is indicative of the growing realisation that it is about learning and not about education. Learning is something that every individual does or group of individuals do. It is personal and it is determined by one’s needs and interests. Education, on the other hand, has the institution as its starting point. It is increasingly seen as non-optimal, slow to adapt or change, lagging behind society and so forth.

Does this indicate that teachers and schools becoming less relevant? How will educators and institutions be involved in a person’s education twenty years from now?

Paul�Kirschner:

I wouldn’t make that argument. People are notoriously not able to either direct or regulate their own learning experiences. This isn’t strange, when you don’t know what you need to know, it’s very hard to direct your own learning in the proper direction and regulate that process. This has

Knowing how to learn effectively is far more important than, for example, memorizing extensive amounts of data.

Inte

rvie

w68

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

been shown time and time again. Also, learning needs to be supported and guided such that the experiences effectively, efficiently and pleasurably become part and parcel of our cognitive schemas. Finally, we are all victims of what has been called the double curse. As Confucious said: “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance!” Only true experts not only know what they know, but also know what they do not know and what they need to learn (and possibly also how best to learn this, though this is more epistemological than pedagogic). Novices haven’t the slightest idea, and most learners are novices!!

We’ll therefore continue to need “education” as offered by schools and universities to guide learners in identifying their learning needs and assisting them in their learning. However, institutions will have to move away from offering pre-packaged and standardised learning content. Instead, they will, in collaboration with the individual learners, help identify and develop effective and efficient personalised learning strategies. Teachers and trainers will assist learners as both experts in a specific content domain and pedagogic guides of personalised learning.

Interestingly, the report also reveals that while experts are optimistic about the development of technology enhanced learning opportunities, respondents were sceptical about the ability of formal education systems and institutions to keep pace with change and become more flexible and dynamic.

The inflexible nature of educational systems has been a topic among pedagogues for decades. What needs to happen in order for schools to make real changes in their approach to education?


This is a difficult problem without an easy solution! We have seen that educational policymakers and practitioners across Europe are more and more aware that educational transformation is urgent, and absolutely necessary for 21st century education – leading to employment and employability, inclusion and participation in society and for

creating a competitive economy with innovative companies and services. Education has to take the lead and make sure that curricula are open enough to allow for experimentation and personalisation; that formative instead of summative assessment procedures are favoured which focus on the individual learners and their progress; that room for teachers to experiment with innovative pedagogical approaches is foreseen, that teachers are trained adequately and that they have the necessary time to devote to their students rather than to administration.

Again, ICT can be a great enabler supporting the change we need, by allowing educators to experiment with innovative pedagogical approaches to the benefit of their learners without losing sight of the constraints imposed by curricula and assessment procedures. Thus, the fact that experts are more optimistic as concerns technological developments might also be grounded in the observation that organisational and pedagogical innovation are often triggered by technological innovation so that there is a logical time lag between the two.

However, people are the key to any transformation. The learners of tomorrow (and already of today) expect a different kind of education and training, which is more open, inclusive and close to their realities. Education has no other option but to reflect upon these expectations and embed education fully in today’s society.

What role can the EU have in fostering and monitoring this shift in the nature of education? (As opposed to regional or national policies)


EU policy can encourage national policy makers to address the pending changes and challenges and raise their awareness for a systematic change of educational practice. EU policy can furthermore promote knowledge exchange and establish good practice for educational practitioners. Most importantly, however, EU policy can also stimulate change of education and training institutions from within, through programs

Teachers and trainers will assist learners as both experts in a specific content domain and pedagogic guides of personalised learning.

Inte

rvie

w69

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

such as Comenius and Erasmus, which encourage learners and teachers to reflect upon and question their educational traditions, which allow them to experiment with different pedagogical concepts and approaches and which show them that communication and collaboration are key to learning. These programs lay the ground for the cultural and mental changes that are necessary to prepare teachers and learners for what is ahead.

Ultimately, we have seen that the sharing of experience and knowledge is key to fostering change. As part of our foresight project we have also consulted with teachers who, one could argue, form the avant-garde for the future of school education. We asked these teachers for their visions of the future and were surprised to see that responses were very much inline with our expert views. This means that teachers who are well informed, advanced in their use of technology and open to innovative pedagogy are aware of the changes and challenges we are facing. These teachers can prepare the ground for making change happen in schools all across Europe.

Finally, can you let us know about the work you’re now doing within the “The Future of Learning: New Ways to Learn New Skills for Future Jobs” project? What upcoming projects or results should we be expecting from your consortium?


We are currently in the process of publishing further material we have collected in the course of the project. As I mentioned above, we have extended our expert consultations also to teachers and we will soon publish a report which summarizes the findings from these consultations. In the first half of this year we have asked more than 150 experts in four different survey rounds to help us develop more concrete learning scenarios for nine different learning profiles, from primary school to retirement. We are currently in the process of digesting all the input we have received in these consultations and will be publishing a report on these scenarios for future learning.

Once we have finished analysing and evaluating all these findings, we hope to further consolidate and validate the results from these stakeholder consultations, and possibly also involve more stakeholders, such as the students themselves. We would like to contribute to a European-wide shared vision building on the necessary changes to education and training, together with national and regional educational policymakers, so that in the end, the pad is paved for these changes to be implemented and realised.

Teachers who are well informed, advanced in their use of technology and open to innovative pedagogy are aware of the changes and challenges we are facing.

Inte

rvie

w70

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

The Editor’s Selection

Comments on news, blogs, websites, and recent publications

European Award for Best Children’s Online Content

The European Award for Best Children’s Online Content is a competition organised jointly by the Safer Internet Centres in 14 Member States and the European Commission’s Safer Internet Programme. The competition was organised for the first time in 2010-2011 as a pilot.

This competition aims to showcase quality content that targets 6-12 year olds and which is already online. It is designed to encourage the production of quality online content which benefits children in some way (educate, inform, stretch and stimulate imagination, enable new possibilities, etc.)

Adult participants may include organisations, whether public, NGO or commercial, and private persons as individuals or as a group. The competition also welcomes young people aged 12 to 17 years old.

ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/events/competition/index_en.htm

IT WORLD EDU

This October the third edition of ITworldEdu was hosted in Barcelona. With more than 700 participants from the Education and ITC sector, during the 3-day conference a strong focus was placed on to how to individualize learning by using technology. The ITWorldEdu 2010 Awards acknowledged several projects for their best practice. “Euclides Television” by the Instituto Euclides de Pineda de Mar won 1st prize within the category for tools and platforms for virtual communication.

Second prize was awarded to “Webex” by the Centro Asociado UNED de Tudela from the category tools for improving oganization and management. The Escuela Proyecto de Barcelona took home 3rd prize for their didactic tool for creating videogames in the classroom, and an honourable mention was given to the Institut Ernest Lluch y Martín de Cunit.

www.itworldedu.cat/index.php

News

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/events/competition/index_en.htm

The

Editor

’s S

elec

tion

71

eLea

rnin

gPaper

s

Websites

Futurelab www.futurelab.org.uk/

An independent not-for-profit organisation that is dedicated to transforming teaching and learning, through the use of innovative practice and technology. This website has a wide range of resources including documentation of past and current research projects, publications, reports, article, and event listings (UK).

EduFeedr www.edufeedr.net

A feed reader for online courses that allows each participant to use his/her personal blog to publish thoughts on course readings, answers to assignments and other course related posts. It is a tool that integrates with existing online course platforms and promotes open access to online learning.

The Planet apps.forskning.se:8080/InfactPlaneten/index.html?lang=eng

The site contains illustrative animations, educational stories and interactive video. All material is based on scientific research on global change. In fact, it is a brand new concept for presenting research information on the Internet. It uses the latest technologies to attract young people in particular and get them more aware, informed and excited about science.

FICTUP fictup.inpl-nancy.fr/index.php/Main_Page

The objective of the FICTUP project is to create innovative training materials describing concrete pedagogical activities including ICT usage, associated to a close tutoring process, and to test the impact of these supports on novice teachers in ICT.

www.downes.ca/news/ OLDaily is a newsletter delivered five days a week which features the latest news and information on e-learning and related fields. It looks at fields such as online publishing, software and multimedia design, information and communications studies - to name a few – in relation to their impact on online learning. OLDaily casts a wide net to spot trends before they hit the education scene.

www.tonybates.ca/welcome/A website updated daily that is a comprehensive source for locating resources in e-learning and distance education. This site focuses mainly on resources associated with or relevant to post-secondary education. It is meant as a resource for students, faculty and academic administrators interested in e-learning.

Student-Centred Learning - Toolkit for students, staff and higher education institutions

This toolkit is designed to aid effective, practical implementation of Student-Centred Learning (SCL) by teaching staff, students and institutional leaders. It aims to show how practical and achievable SCL is, as well as being highly beneficial for learners.

This publication is part of the project “Time for a New Paradigm in Education: Student Centered Learning”, funded with support from the European Commission.

Education Today 2010 The OECD Perspective

What does the OECD have to say about the state of education today? What are the OECD’s main messages on early childhood education, teacher policies and tertiary education? What about student performance, educational spending and equity in education? The OECD’s work on these important education topics and others have been

brought together in a single accessible source, updating the first edition of Education Today which came out in March 2009.

Organised into eight chapters, this report examines early childhood education, schooling, transitions beyond initial education, higher education, adult learning, outcomes and returns, equity, and innovation. The chapters are structured around key findings and policy directions emerging from recent OECD educational analyses. Each entry highlights the main message in a concise and accessible way, with a brief explanation and reference to the original OECD source. This report will prove to be an invaluable resource for all those interested in the broad international picture of education, as well as for those wanting to know more about OECD’s work in this important domain.

The Amazing Web 2.0 Projects Book

The Amazing Web 2.0 Projects Book features primary and secondary uses of Web 2.0 submitted by ICT teachers across the UK. It includes sections on benefits, challenges and tips on how to implement the applications. Almost all of the 94 project contributors are practicing teachers.

Publications

Blogs

http://apps.forskning.se:8080/InfactPlaneten/index.html?lang=eng

http://fictup.inpl-nancy.fr/index.php/Main_Page

eLearning Papers is an online journal highlighting the latest trends in the area, published five times a year, offering an executive summary of each article, translated in 21 languages. eLearning Papers is free of charge, available at its own domain: www.elearningpapers.eu

www.elearningeuropa.info portal is an initiative of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture, aiming to promote the use of ICT for lifelong learning. The site offers the latest information, tools and resources developed around three main services: Directory, Newsletter and the online journal eLearning Papers. www.elearningeuropa.info is an open platform where the players and communities using it can obtain information, share experiences, present their projects and discuss ideas.

Special editioneLearning


An initiative of the European Commission

eLearning Papers Special Edition edited byelearningeuropa.info

elearning papers special edition 2010

Education

learning environment

lifelong learning

future learning

field of learning

hightech learning

evaluation networked

elearning trends

european commission