learning 2.0 for an inclusive knowledge society

Against the background of the increasing penetration of social computing and social networking into all aspects of modern life, the Links-up project investigates whether and under what circumstances ‘Web 2.0’ technologies can support lifelong learning for people who experience social exclusion or who are ‘at risk’ of social exclusion.This report, which covers the initial phase of the two-year project, draws together the evidence from research studies, evaluations and case studies of initiatives to present the main features of the ‘landscape’ of ‘Web 2.0 for inclusive learning’.

Links-up identifies ‘what works for whom under what circumstances’ and con-siders how the outcomes and impacts of using Web 2.0 for inclusive learning can be measured. Finally, on the basis of the ‘lessons learned’ and the pitfalls experienced in developing and implementing Web 2.0-based support for excluded groups, the Report provides practical recommendations for policy- makers and practitioners in order to help make future programmes and projects in this field more effective.

MO

BILE

GEM

EIN

SCH

AFTE

N –

Erf

olgr

eich

e Be

ispi

ele

aus d

en B

erei

chen

Spi

elen

, Ler

nen

und

Ges

undh

eit

ISBN 978-3-902448-28-6

Lin

ks-u

p –

Le

arn

ing

2.0

for

an

Incl

usi

ve K

no

wle

dg

e s

oc

iety

– U

ntd

ers

tan

din

g t

he

Pir

ctu

re

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication refl ects the views only of the author(s), and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

Learning 2.0 for an Inclusive Knowledge Society – Understanding the Picture

Photos: Fotolia.com © Coka, Franz Pfl uegl, Jason Sitt, Miroslav, Mosquidoo, Yvonne Bogdanski

Edited by Guntram Geser, Salzburg Research

Authors: Davide Calenda, Clare Cullen, Joe Cullen, Thomas Fischer, Guntram Geser, Renate Hahner, Martijn Hartog, Damian Hayward, Wolf Hilzensauer, Else Rose Kuiper, Veronique Maes, Bert Mulder, Katharina Nasemann, Sandra Schön, Diana Wieden-Bischof

www.links-up.eu

Learning 2.0 for an Inclusive Knowledge Society –

Understanding the Picture

Learning 2.0 for an Inclusive Knowledge Society –

Understanding the Picture

Edited byGuntram Geser

AuthorsDavide Calenda, Clare Cullen, Joe Cullen, Thomas Fischer, Guntram Geser, Renate Hahner, Martijn Hartog, Damian Hayward, Wolf Hilzensauer,Else Rose Kuiper, Veronique Maes, Bert Mulder, Katharina Nasemann,Sandra Schön, Diana Wieden-Bischof

Copyright

This work has been licensed under a Creative Commons License: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Project informationLinks-up


Lifelong Learning Programme

Sub-programme: KA3-ICT

Action: KA3 Multilateral Projects

Project Number: 505544-LLP-1-2009-1-DE-KA3-KA3MP

http://www.links-up.eu/

Work Package 2 – Case Study Report on inclusive Learning 2.0

Deliverable 2.1 – Report on in-depth case studies of innovative examples of the use of

Learning 2.0 and Web 2.0 for inclusive lifelong learning.

ISBN 978-3-902448-28-6

ContactThomas Fischer

Institute for Innovation in Learning (ILI)

[email protected]

Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

Editor

Guntram Geser, Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria

Authors

Davide Calenda, Servizi Didattici e Scientifici per l’Università di Firenze, Prato, Italy

Clare Cullen, Arcola Research LLP, London, United Kingdom

Joe Cullen, Arcola Research LLP, London, United Kingdom

Thomas Fischer, Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI), Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg,

Erlangen, Germany

Guntram Geser, Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria

Renate Hahner, Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI), Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg,

Erlangen, Germany

Martijn Hartog, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

Damian Hayward, Arcola Research LLP, London, United Kingdom

Wolf Hilzensauer, Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria

Else Rose Kuiper, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

Veronique Maes, Arcola Research LLP, London, United Kingdom

Bert Mulder, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, The Netherlands

Katharina Nasemann, Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI), Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-

Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

Sandra Schön, Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria

Diana Wieden-Bischof, Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft, Salzburg, Austria

A digital version of this Summary Report can be downloaded from http://www.links-up.eu/

This project has been funded with support from the European Com-

mission. This publication reflects the views only of the author(s),

and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which

may be made of the information contained therein.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Executive summary....................................................................................................7

1 Theoretical and methodological overview...............................................................9

1.1 Learning, inclusion and Web 2.0..............................................................................9

1.2 Methodological approach .....................................................................................11

1.3 Research questions ...............................................................................................11

1.4 Research methods and case study design.............................................................12

2 Selection criteria and selected cases......................................................................15

2.1 Data collection and analysis...................................................................................15

2.2 Overview of selected cases....................................................................................16

3 Analysis of intervention concepts of Web 2.0 learning and social inclusion.............23

3.1 General observations on the intervention concepts.............................................23

3.2 Tabular overview of the intervention concepts.....................................................24

3.3 Important aspects of the intervention concepts...................................................27

4 Web 2.0 technologies used....................................................................................29

4.1 General observations on technology implementation and use ............................29

4.2 Tabular overview of tools and objectives...............................................................30

4.3 Patterns of technology implementation and use...................................................33

5 Problems encountered and lessons learned...........................................................35

5.1 Observations on major issues faced by the projects.............................................35

5.2 Tabular overview of problems encountered and lessons learned.........................35

5.3 Discussion of the main problem areas and lessons learned..................................43

6 Recommendation for successful projects in Web 2.0 learning and social inclusion...51

6.1 Overcoming resistance of organisational cultures.................................................51

6.2 Meeting user needs and requirements in e-skilling & inclusion............................51

6.3 Promoting open Web 2.0 based educational practices in schools........................52

6.4 Using appropriate e-learning & inclusion methods...............................................52

6.5 Driving participation on community websites.......................................................53

6.6 Securing sustainability and impact........................................................................54

7 The case studies and the landscape of Learning 2.0 for inclusion............................55

7.1 Introduction............................................................................................................55

7.2 The policy context..................................................................................................56

7.3 The theoretical context..........................................................................................60

7.4 The practices context ............................................................................................63

8 A ‘theory of change’ interpretation of the results...................................................67

8.1 Introduction: Theory of change and impact assessment.......................................67

8.2 Evidence on impacts...............................................................................................68

8.3 Summary of impacts: general theory of change analysis......................................71

9 Literature and sources...........................................................................................73

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background and aims of Links-up

Links-up is a two-year research project that is co-financed by the Lifelong Learning pro-

gramme of the European Commission. The project started in November 2009 and is car-

ried out by an international project team: The project co-coordinator University of Erlan-

gen (DE), Arcola Research LLP (UK), European Distance and eLearning Network (UK),

Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft (AT), Servizi Didattici e Scientifici per l’Uni-

versità di Firenze (IT) and University of the Hague (NL).

The overall aim of Links-up is to combine and enhance the know-how of existing pro-

jects in the field of inclusion with learning 2.0 in order to promote better future e-inclu-

sion projects and policies. More specifically, Links-up will

| collect and analyse information on projects that are using Web 2.0 tools and meth-

ods for learning and social inclusion,

| implement an “Innovation Laboratory” for “Learning 2.0 for inclusion” to support

knowledge-sharing between different existing initiatives,

| develop new approaches and tools building on the gathered expertise, and

| test identified success factors in five learning experiments examining whether and in

what ways they improve the efficiency and effectiveness of current learning 2.0 ap-

proaches for inclusion.

This research work reflects the increasing interest in the opportunities offered by “Web

2.0” for supporting innovative ways of learning, especially for those who are “hard to

reach” or “at risk” of social exclusion.

Links-up relates to, and aims to support, a number of current policy initiatives. On the

European level this includes the EU i2010 initiative (2005)1, the Riga Declaration on e-in-

clusion policy goals (2006)2; the Lisbon Declaration on e-inclusion (2007)3; the European

Commission’s Communication “Ageing Well in the Information Society” (2007)4 and the

“e- inclusion: be part of it” initiative5.

1 i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment. Available online at:

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm [2010-09-15]

2 Riga Declaration (2006). Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/-

events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf [2010-09-16]

3 Lisbon Declaration (2006). An Alliance for Social Cohesion through Digital Inclusion, Lis-

bon, 28-29 April 2006. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/latin-

america/regional-cooperation/alis/documents/lisbon_declaration_en.pdf [2010-09-16]

4 EC Communication (2007) 332 final. Online available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexU-

riServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0332en01.pdf

5 e-Inclusion: Be Part of It! Online available at: http://ec.europa.eu/-

information_society/activities/einclusion/bepartofit/index_en.htm [2010-09-10]

7

Case study report on inclusive Learning 2.0

This report presents an in-depth case study analysis of 24 examples of innovative use of

Learning 2.0 and Web 2.0 for inclusive lifelong learning (project deliverable 2.1). A nar-

rative descriptions of the 24 case studies is free available for download from the project

website.6

The main objective of this collection and analysis of exemplary projects is to investigate

the potential of Learning 2.0 to support the social inclusion of groups at risk of exclusion

from society.

In particular, problems encountered and lessons learned by the projects are summar-

ised, and a number of practical recommendations provided on how to realise successful

projects in Web 2.0 learning and social inclusion.

The projects studied are also set within the current “landscape of Learning 2.0 for inclu-

sion”, i.e. the contexts of policy, theory and practices. Thus the extent to which the cases

support the major policies in the field, the conceptual thinking around social inclusion

and the needs of excluded groups is evaluated.

Moreover, the projects are reflected upon from the perspective of a “theory of change”

approach taking account of the evidence on impacts they provide.

6 http://www.linksup.eu or directly available http://tinyurl.com/linksup-cases

8

1 THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

1.1 Learning, inclusion and Web 2.07

‘Inclusion’ is a complex concept, not least, because it is intimately associated with its op-

posite – exclusion. As Glass (2000) observes, there is frequently a confusion in the liter-

ature between trying to measure social exclusion and trying to measure the effects of

policies aimed at eliminating it. The elimination of exclusion – inclusion – needs to ad-

dress complex multi-dimensional phenomena.

As the European Commission (2004) defined it, exclusion is ‘a process whereby certain

individuals are pushed to the edge of society and prevented from participating fully by

virtue of their poverty, or lack of basic competencies and lifelong learning opportunities,

or as a result of discrimination. This distances them from job, income and education op-

portunities as well as social and community networks and activities. They have little ac-

cess to power and decision-making bodies and thus often feeling powerless and unable

to take control over the decisions that affect their day to day lives.´

The growing ubiquity of ICTs in recent years, as a result of the burgeoning ‘Knowledge

Society’, has attracted the attention of initiatives and projects aimed at harnessing tech-

nologies to address exclusion and support inclusion. This has especially been the case

with regard to ´Web 2.0´, and ‘social networking’ technologies, with their potential to

support far greater social interaction than before.

As a range of studies have demonstrated (see Redecker et al., 2009); the Web offers a

lot of possibilities for self-expression and people are able to participate, e.g. to gain in-

formation, to communicate and to collaborate in many different ways. For example,

with the use of web 2.0 technologies, blind people are able to participate by using a

braille display, a device which transforms the information on the screen into embossed

printing. Also, migrants can use online tools to enhance their second language abilities

with informal learning activities.

Nevertheless, the ´digital divide´ between better-educated and higher-status groups and

involuntary off-liners or people with low digital literacy still exists and limits the possibil-

ities of participation. A recent report by the Oxford Internet Institute observed that:

“technological forms of exclusion are a reality for significant segments of the popula-

tion, and that, for some people, they reinforce and deepen existing disadvantages”

(Helsper, 2008).

There is strong evidence to suggest that significant numbers of people remain at the

margins of the ‘knowledge society’ – not least because the complexity and diversity of

their lives, and their roles in a ‘technologically rich’ society, remain poorly understood

(Facer & Selwyn, 2007). Digital inclusion itself is therefore a new field for inclusion initi-

atives, concerning e.g. the accessibility of web resources or digital literacy of people at

risk of exclusion.

Against this background, a number of initiatives have been established to support the

application of ICTs – particularly Web 2.0 – to inclusion. In tandem, a range of initiatives

aimed at awareness-raising and dissemination of good practices in the field have been

implemented, including, several awards schemes. For example, the European e-Inclu-

sion Award8 was established in 2008 in the following categories: ageing well, marginal-

7 The following text is a slightly revised version of parts of Schaffert, Cullen, Hilzensauer &

Wieden-Bischof, 2010, pp. 57–64.

8 European e-Inclusion Award – http://www.e-inclusionawards.eu/ [2010-05-18]

9

ised young people, geographic inclusion, cultural diversity, digital literacy, e-accessibility,

and inclusive public services. Altogether 469 European institutions had applied for the

e-Inclusion Award in 2008.

To build an overview of the results and lessons learned in the projects, the European

Commission initiated a study (Osimo, De Luca & Codagnone, 2010) on projects and initi-

atives in the whole field of inclusion by private and non-profit European organisations.

The majority of case studies are in the field of e-accessibility (ibid, p. 10). Another study,

published in 2008, gives an overview on the different fields of action and examples of e-

inclusion in Austria (The Federal Chancellery, 2008). Furthermore eLearning Papers No.

19, a publication of elearningeuropa.info, has published a number of articles on inclu-

sion and digital technologies (eLearning Papers, 2010).

Learning with ICT is to be seen as a key driver for inclusion. It is increasingly argued that

Web 2.0 can empower resistant learners and groups at risk of exclusion by offering them

new opportunities for self-realisation through collaborative learning, and by changing

the nature of education itself. This owes much to a notion that has come to the fore in

recent thinking on learning – the idea that education is now focusing on ‘new millenni-

um learners’ (NML), and that the future of learning is inextricably bound up with these

learners.

NML – those born after 1982 – are the first generation to grow up surrounded by digital

media, and most of their activities dealing with peer-to-peer communication and know-

ledge management are mediated by these technologies (Pedró, 2006). For example, it is

easier to take part in open learning initiatives, profit from open educational resources

and new tools that allow easy communication and collaboration for learners. There

seem to be fewer boundaries to take part in these opportunities compared with formal

education settings, where social milieu, family background, healthiness, socio-economic

possibilities and the accessibility of educational institutions as well as the geographic

location e.g. urban areas, are still the most important factors for (non) participation.

Yet, as noted above, the evidence base for these conclusions is fragmented and con-

tested. There is also counter evidence that Web 2.0 can reinforce exclusion and reduce

learning outcomes. For example, it seems that people with better education and socio-

economic backgrounds profit more from the new learning and participation opportunit-

ies than others. This effect – those who have more will get more – is called Matthew’s

effect based on a popular citation from the bible. Therefore, a sceptic view on projects

within this field is needed. Critical questions comprise: Is learning 2.0 really supporting

inclusive life-long learning? Can isolated experiments be mainstreamed and is learning

2.0 fundamentally changing the educational landscape?

Until now, there have only been a few studies that bring together experiences in this

field. For example, the aim of the project ´E-learning 4 E-inclusion´ is “to build a com-

munity for those with valuable expertise regarding the use of eLearning for digital inclu-

sion” (Casacuberta, 2007, 1). Another contribution which focuses on inclusion projects

dealing with learning and Web 2.0 is called ´e-learning 2.0´ (Downes, 2005) or in short

´learning 2.0´.

As a part of a wider project about learning 2.0 initiatives and their effects on innovation

(see Redecker et al., 2009) a study based on case studies of eight projects on learning

2.0 for inclusion was implemented by Cullen, Cullen, Hayward and Maes (2009). Within

this study, the described initiatives focus on learners ‘at risk’ of exclusion from the

knowledge-based society. For example, the alternative online-school “Notschool” fo-

cused on young people for whom 'school does not fit'. Another example “MOSEP”,

10

which developed training materials for trainers using the e-portfolio method, addressed

the growing problem of adolescents dropping-out of the formal education system

around Europe (Hilzensauer & Buchberger, 2009). The study delivered an overview

about approaches and experiences within eight case studies concerning the innovative-

ness, the barriers and success factors of the initiatives.

Building on the results of the above mentioned study by Cullen et al. (2009), the Links-

up project has been developed. Links-up will collect and enhance the know-how of se-

lected European projects in the field of inclusion through learning and Web 2.0. The

project aims at delivering recommendations for better projects and policies in the spe-

cial field of inclusion through learning 2.0. This report is one important step in achieving

this.

1.2 Methodological approach

From a methodological point of view, Links-up's recommendations will be derived

through a four-step-process:

Step 1: The project consortium will describe and analyse case studies of existing projects

in the field of inclusion through learning 2.0 using a detailed tool-kit for case studies.

Step 2: In five ´innovation laboratories´ Links-up partners will observe new Web 2.0 us-

ages within existing projects using ‘action research’. Action Research (Pedler, 1997) fo-

cuses on gathering and analysing data to assess the nature and scope of changes

brought about by an innovative intervention – in these cases the use of Web 2.0 to sup-

plement existing learning practices. Observations made by the project manager and by

participants will be collected, selected and reflected on. The data collection and analysis

will be linked to specific hypotheses posed by the initial Links-up research analysis. For

example, the action research will test the hypothesis that ‘motivational resistance to

participation in Web 2.0 learning environments can be reduced through peer support –

especially with older learners’. On the basis of the action research results, a list of re-

commendations will be developed as a guideline to make better projects and policies in

the future. Nevertheless, the first part of our investigations will be an analysis of case

studies.

1.3 Research questions

The overall research questions of Links-up are based on the assumption that, the usage

of Web 2.0 supports inclusive lifelong learning. Links-up will therfore explore three main

issues:

| Is Learning 2.0 really supporting inclusive life-long learning?

| Can isolated experiments be mainstreamed?

| Is Learning 2.0 fundamentally changing the educational landscape?

Other research questions providing additional input to the study are:

| What kinds of Learning 2.0 applications are currently being developed and imple-

mented to support lifelong learning and social inclusion?

| What are their characteristics, in terms of technical configurations; learning scenari-

os; pedagogic methods; institutional arrangements?

11

| What kinds of new digital skills are emerging as a result of the use of Learning 2.0 ap-

plications?

| What other, non-digital key competences for lifelong learning, are being supported

by Learning 2.0 applications?

| In what ways are Learning 2.0 applications equipping users with skills that will in-

crease their labour market opportunities?

| What examples of good practice can be identified and how can these be used to sup-

port future policy and practices in the field?

1.4 Research methods and case study design

The research design of this study is a slightly modified approach of the approach de-

veloped for Cullen et al (2009). The methodological approach adopted follows accepted

models and practices used in case studies (Yin, 2002), but incorporates additional ele-

ments chosen to suit the particular focus of this study – particularly the research ques-

tions outlined above – and the environment in which Learning 2.0 initiatives operate. Six

of these additional methodological elements applied were:

| Behavioural additionality analysis (Georghiou & Clarysse, 2006) – a method used to

measure both individual and aggregate changes in learning and social interaction be-

haviours, using self-reported measurements;

| Theory of change analysis (Chen, 1990) – an approach used to identify both the ex-

plicit and implicit paradigm of change that lies at the heart of an innovation – in oth-

er words the transformative model that is embedded within it;

| Cultural logic analysis (Habermas, 1981) – a ‘discursive’ approach used to supple-

ment the ‘theory of change’ analysis and aimed at de-constructing the conceptual

and theoretical paradigms underlying the initiatives, their ‘vision’ of Lifelong Learn-

ing, Learning 2.0 and e-Inclusion and their intended outcomes;

| Pedagogic audit – a tool for assessing learning outcomes (see as an example the Aus-

tralian Flexible Learning Community, 2004);

| Digital skills audit – a method focusing on capturing the extent to which Learning 2.0

applications are developing and supporting e-skills over and beyond the basic ICT

skills typically aimed at in conventional digital literacy programmes;

| Social capacity audit – an instrument designed to assess the effects of participation

in Learning 2.0 initiatives aimed at promoting social inclusion on promoting individu-

al capacity and social participation (see Freire, 1970 and Horton & Freire, 1990).

The case study methodology design is based on five inter-connected stages: (a) logistics,

(b) positioning and profiling, (c) data collection, (d) analysis, (e) synthesis. Table 1 sum-

marises the objectives of each phase together with the methods and tools used to im-

plement it.

12

Phase Objectives Methods and Tools

Logistics Establish protocols for implementing case studies Case study procedures

Identify key informants and data sources. Contact

key ‘gatekeepers’. Arrange site visit

Logistics audit

Positioning

and Profiling

Desk research to collect preliminary data on the

case

Case profile template

Situate the case in its cultural and organisational

lifeworld

Environmental Audit

Data

Collection

Collect preliminary data on key research questions

with main informant

Key informant Interview schedule

Collect data generated through utilisation of plat-

form and tools

Guideline for automated data col-

lection

Collect data on user experiences Self administered user question-

naire

Collect in depth data on user experiences User interview schedule

Collect group data on user experiences Focus Group Guidelines

Observe how the initiative operates on the ground Observation Guideline

Analyse content produced by the initiative Content analysis Guideline

Analysis Assess key outcomes and impacts for individual

users

Behavioural additionality analysis

template

Compare intended outcomes with actual outcomes Theory of change analysis tem-

plate

Evaluate the ‘vision’ of the initiative Cultural logic analysis

Assess learning outcomes Pedagogic audit

Assess innovative e-skills outcomes Digital skills audit

Synthesis Integrate the results of the data collection and ana-

lysis to answer key research questions

Case Summary template

Table 1: Case Study Design (see Chen, 1990)

13

2 SELECTION CRITERIA AND SELECTED CASES

24 cases were selected for a detailed analysis. The detailed narrative description of each

case is free available for download from the project website9. The selection of cases re-

flected the following priorities:

| Different Learning Settings – include formal and non-formal learning settings; differ-

ent target groups, in particular ‘at risk’ and ‘hard to reach’ groups; training situations

(i.e. workplace, at home; distance or face-to-face), training needs (i.e. general, voca-

tional, leisure; re-skilling, up-skilling) and interactions (i.e. learner-teacher, learner-

learner, teacher-teacher), organised learning (i.e. in schools, universities, training

centres);

| Different Social Computing Applications – include a variety of uses of social comput-

ing applications in learning contexts, involving wikis, blogs, podcasts, social book-

marking, editing and networking tools, virtual realities/immersive technologies, as

well as networking, sharing, reviewing, commenting, collaborative knowledge cre-

ation, editing or publishing;

| Maturity and Potential of the Initiative – include initiatives that provide examples of

sustainable development;

| Geographical Distribution – include a range of different geographical locations and

cultural environments.

The procedure adopted for case study selection was as follows:

| A first list of potential projects within the field of inclusion and learning 2.0 was com-

piled by our partner Arcola Research LLP, through intensive research for cases and

projects from a diverse range of European publications and repositories.

| The partners additionally looked for interesting projects within their language area.

This was a very productive step as the partners found a lot of projects from outside

the UK: Typically they are described and documented in their native language

without an English translation (which is normally only needed in European collabora-

tion's or in UK).

| Afterwards, the partners selected possible projects (with the help of the criteria de-

scribed above) and contacted project managers of potential case studies.

| Depending on the interest and agreement of the projects the final list of case studies

was discussed and decided by the project partners.

2.1 Data collection and analysis

As noted above, the study approach incorporates a multi-methodological design in-

volving the use of different data collection methods (quantitative and qualitative) and a

diverse range of actors that consider each of the examples from different perspectives.

As a result, data collection varies from case to case in terms of the type of data collec-

ted, the range of actors represented, the balance between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’

data. However, the case study procedure involved synthesising and interpreting the res-

ults using a common template in order to promote standardisation and support cross-

case comparisons. This approach was successfully used (Cullen et. al., 2009), and we

slightly modified templates and procedures due to the partners' needs.


15

2.2 Overview of selected cases10

Scope of Inclusion Ageing well

(e.g. generation

50+)

Marginalised

people

(e.g. educational

– school drop

out, gifted

people, illness,

economic, labour

market, social

exclusion risks...)

Geographic

inclusion

(e.g. regional fo-

cus, non-urban

or rural area)

Cultural diversity

(e.g. migrants,

ethnic minorit-

ies)

Digital literacy

(e.g. all popula-

tion groups)

ALPEUNED �

Assistive Technology

Wiki�

Avatar@School �

BREAKOUT �

Conecta Joven � � � �

Cyberhus �

EduCoRe �

FreqOut! � � �

HiStory � �

ICONET � �

Mixopolis �

MOSEP �

Mundo de Estrellas �

Nettilukio � �

Notschool �

Pinokio �

rePlay �

Roots & Routes � �

Savvy Chavvy �

Schome Park � �

Seniorkom.at � �

TRIO �

Web in the Hood � �

XenoCLIPse � �

Table 2: Classification of the cases according to the different categories of e-Inclusion

Table 2 gives an overview of the cases and shows the variety with respect to their ´scope

of inclusion´. The classification of inclusion scenarios is based on the categories of the e-

inclusion awards11. Table 2 shows that in this sample most of the projects focus on the

inclusion of marginalised people. Other important dimensions are cultural diversity and

digital literacy, whereas ageing well and geographic inclusion are (intentionally) less

present.

10 A detailled description of each case can be downloaded from the project website:

http://www.linksup.eu or directly available http://tinyurl.com/linksup-cases

11 http://www.e-inclusionawards.eu/

16

Target groups Young kids Teenagers12 Students13 (young)14 Adults Seniors

ALPEUNED �

Assistive Technology

Wiki�

Avatar@School �

BREAKOUT � �

Conecta Joven � �

Cyberhus � �

EduCoRe �

FreqOut! � �

HiStory �

ICONET �

Mixopolis � �

MOSEP � �

Mundo de Estrellas � �

Nettilukio �

Notschool �

Pinokio � �

rePlay � �

Roots & Routes � �

Savvy Chavvy � �

Schome Park � �


TRIO � �

Web in the Hood � � � �

XenoCLIPse � � �

Table 3: Target groups addressed

Table 3 shows that all age groups are well represented, although most cases include the

category teenagers. Obviously, Web 2.0 strategies focus more on the Net-Generation as

well as on the adolescence. Most projects have more than one target group, which of-

fers a variety of implementation scenarios as well as transferability of results.

12 Persons between the ages of 13 and 19.

13 This category includes young people who attend a regular school or university curricu-

lum.

14 FreqOut! As well as Roots & Routs targets young people aged 13-25 years old.

17

Learning activities formal15 non-formal16 informal17

ALPEUNED �

Assistive Technology Wiki �

Avatar@School � �

BREAKOUT �

Conecta Joven �

Cyberhus � �

EduCoRe � �

FreqOut! � �

HiStory � �

ICONET � � �

Mixopolis � � �

MOSEP � �


Nettilukio � �

Notschool �

Pinokio � �

rePlay � � �

Roots & Routes � � �

Savvy Chavvy � �

Schome Park � � �


TRIO �


XenoCLIPse � �

Table 4: Category of the Learning Activities

Most of the learning scenarios focus on informal learning outcomes, often in combina-

tion with either formal or non-formal aspects. Although informal learning activities are

hard to categorise, the cases focus on the indirect acquisition of skills by ´doing´

something with the internet (in different settings) or by using Web 2.0 technology. The

documentation and reflection upon these activities allow for informal learning out-

comes.

15 Formal learning is learning that takes place within a teacher-student relationship and

educational setting (e.g. school).

16 Nonformal learning is organized learning outside the formal learning system. For exam-

ple: learning by coming together with people with similar interests and exchanging

viewpoints, e.g. in a youth organisation.

17 Informal learning occurs in everyday life, e.g. situations at work, conversations, playing,

etc.

18

Inclusion objective Educational

Re-insertion

Supporting

Disability

Digital

Literacy

Overcoming Low

ICT Use

Addressing So-

cial Isolation

ALPEUNED �

Assistive Technology Wiki � � �

Avatar@School �

BREAKOUT �

Conecta Joven � � �

Cyberhus � � �

EduCoRe � �

FreqOut! � �

HiStory � � �

ICONET � �

Mixopolis �

MOSEP �


Nettilukio � � �

Notschool � � � �

Pinokio �

rePlay �

Roots & Routes �

Savvy Chavvy �

Schome Park � �

Seniorkom.at � � �

TRIO � �


XenoCLIPse � �

Table 5: Inclusion objective

With regards to the inclusion objectives, the cases are quite heterogeneous. Most of the

projects provide strategies against social isolation, accompanied with other measures.

Often the inclusion objective is combined with an educational focus, where up-skilling

and competence development are key. Also some cases with a focus on inclusion of

people with disabilities are included in the sample.

19

Tables 6 and 7 below present the fields of intervention combined with the different cat-

egories of learning activities and age groups:

Young kids Teenagers Students (young) Adults Seniors

Ageing well (e.g. gener-

ation 50+)Seniorkom.at

HiStory

Seniorkom.at

Marginalised people

(e.g. educational –

school drop out, gifted,

illness, economic, la-

bour market, social ex-

clusion risks...)

Avatar@School

BREAKOUT

Cyberhus

Mundo de Estrellas

rePlay

Web in the Hood

Pinokio

Avatar@School

BREAKOUT

Cyberhus

FreqOut!

ICONET

MOSEP

Nettilukio

Mundo de Estrellas

Notschool

rePlay

Roots & Routes

Schome Park

ALPEUNED

TRIO

ICONET

Assistive Techno-

logy Wiki

Conecta Joven

EduCoRe

FreqOut!

Roots & Routes

TRIO

Conecta Joven

TRIO

Geographic inclusion

(e.g. rural area)Nettilukio

Cultural diversity

(e.g. migrants, ethnic

minorities)

Pinokio

Savvy Chavvy

Web in the Hood

FreqOut!

ICONET

Mixopolis

Nettilukio

Pinokio

Roots & Routes

Savvy Chavvy

Schome Park

XenoCLIPse

Mixopolis

XenoCLIPse

Conecta Joven

FreqOut!

Roots & Routes

XenoCLIPse

Conecta Joven

Digital literacy

(e.g. all population

groups)

Web in the Hood

FreqOut!

Web in the Hood

XenoCLIPse

Conecta Joven

FreqOut!

Seniorkom.at

Web in the Hood

Conecta Joven

HiStory

Seniorkom.at

Web in the Hood

Table 6: Addressed age groups and fields of inventions of the case studies

20

formal non-formal informal

Ageing well

(e.g. generation 50+)

HiStory

Seniorkom.at

HiStory

Seniorkom.at

Marginalised people

(e.g. educational – school drop

out, gifted, illness, economic, la-

bour market, social exclusion

risks...)

Avatar@School

Cyberhus

ICONET

MOSEP

PINOKIO

Nettilukio

rePlay

Roots & Routes

Schome Park

TRIO

Avatar@School

EduCoRe

FreqOut!

ICONET

Mundo de Estrellas

Nettilukio

Notschool

rePlay

Roots & Routes

Schome Park

ALPEUNED

Assistive Technology Wiki

BREAKOUT

Conecta Joven

Cyberhus

EduCoRe

FreqOut!

ICONET

MOSEP

Mundo de Estrellas

rePlay

Roots & Routes

Schome Park

Geographic inclusion

(e.g. rural area)Nettilukio Nettilukio

Cultural diversity

(e.g. migrants, ethnic minorities)

ICONET

Mixopolis

Nettilukio

Pinokio

Roots & Routes

Schome Park

XenoCLIPse

ICONET

FreqOut!

Mixopolis

Nettilukio

Roots & Routes

Savvy Chavvy

Schome Park

Conecta Joven

ICONET

FreqOut!

Mixopolis

Pinokio

Roots & Routes

Savvy Chavvy

Schome Park

XenoCLIPse

Digital literacy

(e.g. all population groups)XenoCLIPse

FreqOut!

HiStory

Seniorkom.at

Web in the Hood

Conecta Joven

FreqOut!

HiStory

SeniorKom.at

Web in the Hood

XenoCLIPse

Table 7: Addressed learning and field of interventions of the case studies

21

3 ANALYSIS OF INTERVENTION CONCEPTS OF WEB 2.0 LEARNING AND

SOCIAL INCLUSION

The diverse project descriptions presented in the Links-up project contain theories and

models of change. The expectation is that introducing some innovative components into

a social environment – in our cases Web 2.0 tools and methods – will promote different

behaviour of individuals, social groups or organisations, achieving beneficial impact and

change. These changes include re-engagement in learning and greater achievement of

learners, which may lead to improved employment prospects.

Projects using Web 2.0 supported learning for social inclusion can be viewed according

to a macro-model and a micro-model of change. In the example above, the micro-model

is about the learner’s re-engagement and achievement (how can this be realised more

effectively) linked with a socio-economic macro-model that requires people with certain

qualifications and aspirations (how to provide the economy, business and other sectors

with knowledgeable and dedicated workers).

Similar models already exist for issues of social anomy (e.g. deprived communities) and

social exclusion (e.g. of ethnic minorities and migrant communities). In these situations,

the intended impact of using Web 2.0 tools and methods is to strengthen communities

and promote social inclusion. However, processes of social learning also play a key role

(e.g. activities that vitalise a social community, help develop mutual understanding

among social groups, etc.).

The models inform interventions aimed at tackling problems in learning and social inclu-

sion and realising favourable impacts and changes in attitudes, knowledge and beha-

viours. In the sections below, we analyse the intervention concepts of the projects stud-

ied. The intervention concept of each project comprises the problem addressed, the tar-

get group(s), the intervention using Web 2.0 tools and methods, and the intended im-

pact of the intervention.

The sections below are structured as follows:

1. provides general observations on the intervention concepts of the projects studied;

2. presents a tabular overview of the intervention concepts;

3. discusses and illustrates important aspects of the concepts.

3.1 General observations on the intervention concepts

Problems addressed: The main problems requiring intervention are understood to be

lack of competences and participation in social life, i.e. social inclusion which requires

active engagement by the individuals and social groups themselves. In particular, en-

gagement in education, vocational training and lifelong learning in many social groups is

seen as a core issue. Equally, acquisition of e-skills as a basis for employability and parti-

cipation in the information and knowledge society is also presented as highly important.

Furthermore, better counselling in critical situations as well as for vocational orientation

and job finding is seen as a vital need. There is also a trend for developing innovative ap-

proaches that challenge established ways of providing public services. Such approaches

should allow for re-evaluating education and new scenarios of schooling, as well as new

methods in crime prevention and offender rehabilitation services.

23

Target groups: Groups that stand out as intervention targets are ´hard to reach´ learners

in deprived communities, including ethnic minorities and larger groups of migrants.

Young people are a prime target for interventions because they are seen to be át risk´

(including át risk´ of offending), often present the necessary skills for a career in creat-

ive industries, and may strengthen their community by becoming role models of

achievement and a voice for their interests. Other intervention targets are children, stu-

dents and adults with disabilities or medical conditions.

Intervention approaches: A ´blended´ approach is the most common form of interven-

tion. The main reason for this is that in many interventions, target groups face barriers

to learning which need to be overcome, such as poor e-skills, lack of motivation and

trust. A ´blended´ approach also allows for developing social relationships and exchange

of experiences among participants (community building) that can be supported, facilit-

ated and enhanced by using Web 2.0 tools. Ónline only´ approaches are used in con-

texts where there is an established portal or community website and users can be ex-

pected to have sufficient e-skills already.

Intended impacts: Re-engagement in learning, vocational training and lifelong learning,

as well as improving employability and social inclusion are the strongest themes presen-

ted by the sample of case studies, as with a majority of similar projects across Europe.

3.2 Tabular overview of the intervention concepts

The table below provides an overview of the intervention concept of each project stud-

ied. The concept comprises the identified problem, the target group(s), the intervention

using Web 2.0 tools and methods, and the intended impact of the intervention. Details

about the particular Web 2.0 tools used are provided and analysed separately in the

next chapter.

Problems & target group addressed Web 2.0 supported intervention and inten-

ded impact

ALPEUNED Equal learning opportunities and social

inclusion of distance learning students

with disabilities

Promote peer communication and coun-

selling in forums on the distance learning

portal to address problems of disabled stu-

dents and increase social inclusion

Assistive

Technology

Wiki

Improvement of ICT and e-learning op-

portunities for disabled adults and chil-

dren through cooperation in a dedic-

ated membership organisation

Allow for active online participation of more

members on the organisation’s website to

create momentum and receive new ideas

and support

24


ded impact

Avatar

@School

Aggressive social exclusion (e.g. bully-

ing) requires competence in conflict

mediation of students and teachers

Provide a virtual environment as a safe place

for role-playing in conflict situations and

learning about how to behave and mediate

in such situations

BREAKOUT Need of new approaches in youth

crime prevention and offender rehabil-

itation services

Allow for Web 2.0 based communication in

“action learning” of students at risk, teach-

ers, probation services and youth offending

teams to prevent offending behaviour

Conecta Joven Vocational training and lifelong learn-

ing opportunities for marginalised so-

cial groups of adults to allow for em-

ployability and social inclusion

Provide hands-on ICT training combined with

online learning and exchange of experiences

to keep learners engaged and socially con-

nected

Cyberhus Meaningful leisure activities and coun-

selling for kids and teens “at risk”

Provide a save on-line environment where

kids and teens can connect, learn together

and get support by skilled counsellors in crit-

ical situations

EduCoRe Support employability and participa-

tion in society of people that suffer

from physical disabilities after an acci-

dent or illness

Blended training and counselling approach

for people in the physical rehabilitation pro-

cess (hospital, rehabilitation centre, home)

to allow for skills acquisition and social con-

nectedness

FreqOUT! Promote creative activity, social inclu-

sion, and employability of young

people from deprived communities

Blended approach to engage, train and con-

nect talented young people and provide a

platform for creative uses of technology, and

to encourage opportunities for careers in the

creative sector

HiStory E-inclusion/participation of seniors

that is also beneficial for the wider so-

cial community and society

Engage seniors to participate in the digital

sphere by telling their stories of personally

experienced historical events and develop-

ments online (active e-citizenship)

ICONET Recognition of informal vocational

skills of students gained in extra-cur-

ricular experiences to leverage em-

ployability

Develop validation procedures in a train-the-

trainer environment and promote adoption

of the procedures potentially raising employ-

ment prospects of students

Mixopolis Need of better vocational orientation

and job searching for young people

with migration background

Attract, inform and connect young people

from the target community through an on-

line career orientation portal

MOSEP Prevent early school leaving and help

students to recognise their educational

achievements. Support students with

preparation for vocational careers

Motivate and train teachers and vocational

counsellors to use e-portfolios and online

collaboration methods to better inform stu-

dents about their education and vocational

career choices

25


ded impact

Mundo

de Estrellas

Increase well-being and learning of ill

school-age children in hospitals

Provide the children with an online environ-

ment for learning, recreation and social com-

munity

Nettilukio Students and adults who cannot parti-

cipate in the regular school system

(e.g. parents with small children, shift-

worker, disabled persons, students liv-

ing abroad) but want to gain an upper

secondary school diploma

Provide a flexible learning environment for

self-directed coursework and communication

with tutors and peers to prepare for the na-

tional exam

Notschool Re-engage learners and remove barri-

ers to learning for young people who

have become disaffected in traditional

school environments or excluded from

school due to behaviour or other cir-

cumstances

Enable personalised and self-directed learn-

ing with community support (tutors, peers

and other community members) to allow for

resilience and educational achievement of

students

Pinokio Addresses the need to promote inter-

cultural dialogue against social exclu-

sion of migrants involving pre-school

and primary school children, teachers

and parents

Combine story telling (fables) with new me-

dia to co-create narratives that enable dis-

cussion and better understanding social ex-

clusion

rePlay Intervention programs for social (re-)

integration aimed at marginalised and

young people and those “at risk” of of-

fending.

Provide an environment for game-based so-

cial learning and integration in centres for

young offenders and schools in deprived

communities

Roots

&

Routes

Promote creative activity, social inclu-

sion, and employability of talented

young people from deprived com-

munities

Blended approach of face-to-face learning

and hands-on development of skills in creat-

ive production with online community and

presentation of creative products, which may

encourage careers in the creative sector

Savvy Chavvy Strengthen ethnic minorities by en-

couraging young people to take pride

in their culture

Provide a safe, self-managed environment

for young people from the Gypsy and Travel-

ler community to connect, share experi-

ences, and tell stories about their culture

Schome Park Explore new educational possibilities

for co-learning and peer mentoring of

young people with difficulties in main-

stream schooling

Provide a virtual world for open learning

practices that challenge traditional teacher-

student roles and assessment of learning,

providing a platform to re-evaluate educa-

tion and develop new scenarios of schooling

Seniorkom.at E-inclusion of seniors by providing op-

portunities for recreational, learning

and community activities

Engage seniors on a dedicated portal by al-

lowing for meaningful and largely self-organ-

ised activities with own contributions

26


ded impact

TRIO Retention of adults in vocational train-

ing and lifelong learning

Provide a regional portal with e-learning

courses and communication features that

help counter learner drop-out and improve

retention

Web in the

Hood

Strengthening deprived communities

through e-skilling and community-fo-

cused activities of adults

Blended approach of physical meeting places

for socialising and online activities for com-

munity members aimed to encourage people

to care for each other and form stronger

community ties.

XenoCLIPse Strengthen ethnic minorities and mi-

grant communities by encouraging

young people to produce their own

media images of their culture

Support media production and presentation

of young people from the target communit-

ies potentially opening up careers in media

organisations

Table 8: Overview of the intervention concepts

3.3 Important aspects of the intervention concepts

Problems addressed

At the most general level, the core problem is social inclusion that requires active parti-

cipation of the target groups addressed. More specifically, lack of engagement in educa-

tion, vocational training and lifelong learning of people in all age groups is seen as a

prime target for intervention.

The majority of the case studies addressed this area. Clearly, an inclusive knowledge so-

ciety cannot be realised if many people do not acquire the necessary e-skills and voca-

tional experiences needed for employability and participation in social and economic

life.

Additionally, there is a vital need for better counselling services to help people in crisis

situations, as well as services offering valuable careers advice. These issues are ad-

dressed by some of the projects (e.g. Cyberhus, ICONET, Mixopolis and MOSEP).

There are also several projects that respond to the demand for innovative approaches

that challenge established ways of providing public services. This includes Schome Park,

which aims to develop a new educational format, and Breakout, which tested new

methods in crime prevention and offender rehabilitation services.

Target groups addressed

The major intervention targets are a range of social groups that are understood as “hard

to reach” and comprise unemployed low-skilled adults, young people “at risk” that

should be re-engaged in learning, and ethnic minorities and migrant communities lack-

ing social inclusion and participation.

There is a strong focus on social groups in deprived (urban) communities. Young people

are seen as a priority group because of their potential to play a role in strengthening

27

their communities. They may become role models, encouraging others to respect ethnic

minorities and migrant communities, and serve as a voice for their culture and interests.

A particular focus of projects in this field is to recruit and train talented young people for

a career in the creative industries (e.g. FreqOUT!, Roots & Routes, XenoCLIPse).

Other particular intervention targets are children, students and adults with disabilities

or medical conditions (e.g. ALPEUNED, Assistive Technology Wiki, EduCoRe, Mundo de

Estrellas).

Intervention approaches

Most projects employ a “blended” approach, which is adapted for different target

groups and interventions:

At the base level there are interventions that primarily aim to overcome barriers to so-

cial inclusion and learning, and additionally support development of basic e-skills and

promote activities on the Web (e.g. Conecta Joven and Web in Hood).

A special case is Notschool, an initiative which has developed a whole system for re-en-

gaging school drop-outs in learning, allowing for: self-directed learning without fear of

failure or pressure to achieve; connecting with a supportive community (peers, tutors

and other community members) and securing formal accreditation and certification of

educational achievement.

Interventions that focus on young peoples’ talents and skills enable the acquisition of

skills in creative production (workshops, summer schools, etc.), online social networking

and presentation of products, potentially opening up a path towards a career in the cre-

ative industries (e.g. FreqOUT!, Roots & Routes, XenoCLIPse).

Furthermore, there are interventions which prepare teachers and vocational counsellors

to use innovative tools for better assisting students in education and vocational orienta-

tion and preparation, e.g. e-portfolios (MOSEP) or a method for validating informal vo-

cational skills of students gained in extra-curricular experiences (ICONET).

Also of note are examples of interventions that focus on teachers, students and parents

to develop awareness and skills (e.g. story telling, conflict mediation) for overcoming so-

cial exclusion (e.g. Avatar@School and Pinokio).

Approaches that mainly or only use online activities can be found in the context of es-

tablished online portals, for example, a distance learning university (ALPEUNED), an In-

ternet-based upper secondary school (Nettilukio), a regional portal for vocational train-

ing (TRIO), a career orientation portal for students (Mixopolis) or a platform for seniors

(Seniorkom.at).

Furthermore there are open or restricted community websites that implement Web 2.0

tools to allow more members to share ideas and collaborate on topics of interest (e.g.

Assistive Technology Wiki, Cyberhus, Savvy Chavvy).

In such cases the target groups are expected to already have sufficient e-skills for ac-

cessing information, participating in activities, and communicating with peers or a coun-

sellor.

28

4 WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES USED

This section analyses what technologies, in particular, Web 2.0 tools have been used by

the projects. The observations concern what platforms and specific tools are used and

what similarities there are in terms of purpose, target groups and whether they use the

same or different sets of Web 2.0 tools.

The sections below are structured as follows,

1. provides general observations on how the projects are implemented and the range

of Web 2.0 tools used;

2. presents a tabular overview of what project objectives were supported by which

Web 2.0 tools;

3. discusses some patterns identified in the implementation and use of the tools.

4.1 General observations on technology implementation and use

Often several tools have been used – most often communication and collaboration tools

such as weblogs, wikis, forums, chat and podcasts.

Media sharing platforms such as YouTube, flickr, slideshare are also an important ele-

ment in many projects.

Such tools and popular platforms are seldom combined with “classical” e-learning

portals and course programs.

The Moodle platform has been used by several of the projects; others used Drupal or a

home-grown system (e.g. the social software inspired and highly user-friendly system of

“Web in the Hood”).

Social networking platforms were used by projects aimed at bringing together creative

people from marginalised communities, e.g. Facebook by FreqOUT! and Ning by Savvy

Chavvy.

Projects also explored how to use virtual worlds, e.g. Second Life by Schome Park and

OpenSim by Avatar@School.

29

4.2 Tabular overview of tools and objectives

Web 2.0 tools used Objective for which the technology has

been used (and by whom)

ALPEUNED Interactive forums on a distance learn-

ing portal

Support student peer counselling related to

issues of disabled students (Spanish National

University for Distance Learning - UNED)

Assistive

Technology

Wiki

Wiki and media sharing on a Moodle

platform; wiki related features in-

cluded Wetpaint, a „Wiki Weekly Di-

gest“ e-mailed to members, a „Com-

munity Spot-light“ introducing a mem-

ber

Engage members of AbilityNet that focuses

on improving ICT for people with disabilities

(registered national charity, UK)

Avatar

@School

OpenSim virtual world with avatars for

role playing of students

Trial a virtual learning approach for conflict

mediation in situations such as bullying and

other social aggression (EU Socrates project)

BREAKOUT Weblog, forum and podcasts function-

ality on a EU project website

Allow for communication among teachers,

probation services, youth offending teams

and others who work with young people at

risk (EU Socrates project)

Conecta Joven Weblog, forum, co-authoring and me-

dia sharing on a regional portal dedic-

ated to adult workplace and lifelong

learning

Offer 23 community support centres collab-

orative and blended learning opportunities

aimed to overcome “digital divide” (large-

scale regional project in Catalonia, Spain)

Cyberhus Several tools such as weblogs discus-

sion forum, Q&A, instant messaging

clients and others, implemented on

Drupal

Provide a save online club environment for

kids and teens including counselling by vo-

lunteers (non profit organisation)

EduCoRe Weblogs, forum, wiki, implemented on

Moodle

Trial e-inclusion of people that suffer from

physical disabilities after an accident or ill-

ness; e.g. Weblog as learning diary, online

collaboration and e-counselling (EU Gruntvig

LLL project)

FreqOUT! Uses a wide range of tools such as

weblogs, social networking (Facebook

group), YouTube and other content

production, sharing and presentation

tools

Support creativity projects with marginalised

young people (13-25 yrs) in deprived com-

munities (Vital Regeneration, UK, funded by

public grants and private sponsorships)

HiStory Weblogs for writing, aggregating and

commenting on personal stories

Trial e-inclusion of senior people who tell

their stories of personally experienced his-

torical events and developments, promote

inter-cultural/generational exchange (EU

Lifelong Learning project)

30



ICONET Web 2.0 features in a train-the-trainer

tool, forums to share ideas and access

material for counselling of students

Trial vocational counselling tools aimed at

documenting relevant vocational skills of

secondary general school students that are

not covered in school leaving certificates (EU

Leonardo project)

Mixopolis Wiki, forums, weblogs, chat, poll, so-

cial bookmarking and other tools and

functionality

Portal for accompanying young people with

migration background (but also others) in vo-

cational orientation and job finding (part of

the German national “Schulen ans Netz” ini-

tiative)

MOSEP E-Portfolio software (Mahara), Wiki,

video podcasts

Train teachers and vocational counsellors on

e-portfolio work with students who prepare

the next phase of their education or a voca-

tional career (EU Leonardo project)

Mundo

de Estrellas

Personal Learning Environment, inter-

active forums, online games and other

features

Support learning and well-being of school-

age children in 32 public health service hos-

pitals in Andalusia (Spain) since 2000

Nettilukio Learning management system with vir-

tual classroom technology, wikis, for-

ums, weblogs, Skype; recently a virtual

conference room for remote participa-

tion in a classroom at Otava Folk High

School has been added

Allow students and adults who cannot parti-

cipate in the regular school system to gain an

upper secondary school diploma (start fund-

ing by ESF, national funding for regular oper-

ation)

Notschool A range of tools such as weblogs,

“MySpace” functions (notes, book-

marking, etc.), podcasting; implemen-

ted on First Class plat-form; parti-

cipants also received an iMac com-

puter and a printer (also access to di-

gital media equipment) and internet

access at home

Work with young people who have become

disaffected in traditional school environ-

ments or excluded by behaviour or circum-

stances from school (UK DfES funded-pro-

ject)

Pinokio Weblogs, ebooks, podcasts, slide-share

and other tools for producing and

sharing stories

Promote intercultural dialogue against social

exclusion of immigrants involving pre-school

and primary school children, teachers and

parents (EU Comenius project)

rePlay 3D game environment for learning

situations aimed to prevent anti-social

behaviour

Develop and trial a game platform for social

(re-)integration of marginalised young

people, meant to be used by secondary

schools in deprived areas and centres for

young offenders (EU FP7-ICT project)

31



Roots

&

Routes

Weblogs, social networking and multi-

media sharing tools; the web tools

were used in combination with voca-

tional internships, summer schools and

other face-to-face learning opportunit-

ies

Engage marginalised young people between

15 to 25 in creative activities, bring them in

contact with professionals from the arts and

creative sector, and pave a route towards

further learning and career development (EU

Leonardo project)

Savvy Chavvy Social networking (Ning based com-

munity), weblogs, discussion forums,

podcasting and video sharing (via You-

Tube/Blip.tv); leaders from the online

community were trained to adminis-

trate and moderate the site

Provide young people from the Gypsy com-

munity with a safe place to share stories,

podcasts and blogs about their culture (fun-

ded and promoted by On Road Media, UK,

based on School for Social Entrepreneurs

and Unltd awards)

Schome Park Second Life virtual world, wiki, web-

logs, forums, media-sharing (YouTube,

blip.tv, Flickr)

Explore new educational possibilities of co-

learning and peer mentoring in an inclusive

community; participants were young people

aged 13-17 with difficulties in mainstream

schooling (Open University project, UK – fun-

ded by the National Association for Gifted

and Talented Youth, the Innovation Unit,

Becta)

Seniorkom.at Portal with a broad range of function-

ality from weblogs to web radio, and

ensuring easy access to features and

content

Engage senior people in recreational, learn-

ing and community activities such as contrib-

uting content (articles, photos, videos), keep-

ing a diary, participate in forums and chats,

games, etc. and offering news and advice on

special themes (funded and promoted by

several Austrian senior organisations and

media, software and communications pro-

viders)

TRIO Forums and wiki on a Moodle based

platform offering e-learning courses

Lower school drop-out rates and increase

learner retention through a vocational train-

ing portal by allowing communication among

learners and tutors (portal funded and man-

aged by the Administration of the Region of

Tuscany)

Web in the

Hood

Web toolbox with which people can

create their own website in ‘4 clicks’

and then develop their profile, use a

logbook, add content, etc.; there is

also a module for starting an activity

and inviting people to join

Provide e-skills training for adults and help

them create their own web pages aimed at

promoting social inclusion in the neighbour-

hood; “animators” connect the people be-

hind the websites (funded by the Commissie

dag indeling [NL], Oranje Fonds, EQUAL-ESF)

32



XenoCLIPse Online course and hands-on training in

video clip creation; the videos were

made accessible online and a special

Web 2.0 element was a geo-referenced

directory for people interested in

reaching clip producers (e.g. journal-

ists, media companies)

Empower and make visible interests of eth-

nic minority and migrant communities and

promote media careers of students from

these communities (EU eLearning project)

Table 9: Overview of tools and objectives

4.3 Patterns of technology implementation and use

Use of Web 2.0 tools and features on existing institutional platforms

The majority of the projects use Web 2.0 tools in the context of EU projects (e.g. EU Le-

onardo, Socrates and other) and have set up a dedicated project website. Yet there are

also a number of initiatives that use Web 2.0 tools and features on existing institutional

platforms, e.g. ALPEUNED, Assistive Technology Wiki, Cyberhus, Mundo de Estrellas,

Nettilukio, Seniorkom.at, TRIO.

The fact that a platform is already implemented can be an advantage or a hindrance to

the full use of a Web 2.0 approach. Open platforms with Web 2.0 tool modules (e.g.

Drupal, Moodle and others) ease the setup, customization and interoperability of tools.

Other platforms may considerably limit what tools a project can use (and in which ways)

and, even, impede a Web 2.0 approach.

An illustrative case is Cyberhus, which in 2009 changed to a flexible platform (Drupal)

and, as their project manger reported, “saw an explosion in use of our forums and ques-

tion and answers columns”.

Another example may be TRIO: Managed by the Administration of the Region of Tuscany

this platform has offered traditional e-learning courses since 1998. TRIO has over

120,000 registered users and provides thousands of hours training each month. TRIO re-

cently moved from a proprietary system to Moodle and implemented forums and wikis.

Do similar projects use the same set of Web 2.0 tools?

We tried to identify if projects that are similar in terms of purpose and target groups use

the same set of Web 2.0 tools. The answer for our sample of projects is “no”. It is more

the case that a core set of tools is used by very different projects, although most of the

projects want to engage and support people in community building.

The core set of tools comprises weblogs, wikis, forums/chat and is used by projects with

purposes and target groups as diverse as e-inclusion of people that suffer from physical

disabilities (EduCoRe), support of young people with a migration background in voca-

tional advice and finding a job (Mixopolis) and online engagement of seniors (Seni-

orkom.at).

33

Use of one core tool

A couple of projects illustrate that simple tools, as well as more advanced environments,

may be used as the core tool:

For example, HiStory used Weblogs to engage seniors in history telling; ALPEUNED im-

plemented a dedicated forum on their distance learning portal to support student peer

counselling related to issues of disabled students.

Among the advanced environments are an OpenSim virtual world with avatars for role

playing of students used by Avatar@School, and a 3D game environment developed and

trialled by rePlay for purposes such as re-education programmes in centres for young of-

fenders.

“Low tech with high touch”

Among the outstanding examples are uses of “low tech” (yet still state-of-the-art) tools

such as weblogs, social bookmarking and slideshare. For example, Notschool’s success

at re-engaging teens in education or Pinokio’s success at engaging kids and parents to

work on themes related to the social exclusion of immigrants.

34

5 PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND LESSONS LEARNED

The projects studied encountered a number of problems and learned some interesting

lessons that are of interest to other Web 2.0 based e-learning and e-inclusion initiatives.

The sections below present and discuss these problems and lessons learned. They are

structured as follows:

1. provides general observations on major issues faced by the projects;

2. presents a tabular overview of the main problems and lessons learned;

3. summarises and illustrates the main problem areas and lessons learned.

5.1 Observations on major issues faced by the projects

Organisational cultures: The most fundamental issues have to do with organisational

cultures. Projects may face resistance by such cultures to use Web 2.0 communication

and collaboration tools. Often a change in mindsets and practices would be necessary in

order for Web 2.0 approaches to be successful and beneficial.

User needs & requirements: Identifying and meeting the needs & requirements of the

target groups is one of the key success factors. Some cases that used Web 2.0 tools for

e- inclusion were seemingly unable to properly identify and address them until later

phases of the project.

Level of participation: Some projects did not reach the expected level of participation of

target groups. Sometimes, project managers had higher expectations about the active

participation of the users of a portal or community website. In some cases high motiva-

tion and self-organisation of participants can drive an online community, others need

moderation by skilled community managers.

Measuring learning gains and securing formal certification: Projects that use Web 2.0

approaches usually imply that students have more freedom than in a traditional learn-

ing environment. However, there are considerable issues with regards to assessment

and formal recognition of learning outcomes.

Project-to-project work with difficult to reach communities: A number of cases demon-

strate critical issues with regards to sustainability and impact of initiatives that work

with hard to reach social groups under the pressure of sourcing and maintaining funding

Working with socially excluded groups: Successful work with social groups such as ethnic

minorities and migrants requires buy-in and self-organisation of leading members of the

excluded groups.

Availability of ICT: Last but not least, there are issues relating to out-dated ICT in some

places (e.g. schools), lack of access to ICT by people in deprived areas, and the need for

more adaptable and easy-to-use tools.

5.2 Tabular overview of problems encountered and lessons learned

The tabular overview below notes the specific context and focus of each project (e.g. EU

project focused on particular objectives, regional e-skills initiative, etc.), and summar-

ises the Web 2.0 elements, the main problems encountered and most important lessons

learned by each project.

35

Context / focus Web 2.0 elements / main problems en-

countered / most important lessons learned

ALPEUNED Initiative of the Spanish National Uni-

versity for Distance Learning (UNED)

aimed at supporting peer counselling

of students with disabilities

Web 2.0 elements: The university implemen-

ted interactive forums on the distance learn-

ing portal to allow for peer communication

and counselling.

Problems: Student motivation and engage-

ment was felt to be low. Only 482 disabled

students out of a total of 4026 enrolled were

interested and visited forums.

Lessons learned: There was much „chatting“

(e.g. about the university administration)

which was not moderated and channelled

towards productive ends.

Assistive

Technology

Wiki

Membership organisation (registered

national charity, UK) that aims to im-

prove ICT for people with disabilities

and supports e-learning opportunities

for disabled adults and children

Web 2.0 elements: The organisation imple-

mented a wiki and media sharing to allow for

active online participation of more members.

Problems: The level of participation was

much lower than expected, most content

was generated by only a few members.

Lessons learned: Web 2.0 applications do not

necessarily drive participation. Diverse in-

terests of different potential users must be

taken into account and their needs and re-

quirements addressed thoroughly.

Avatar

@School

EU Socrates project focused on conflict

mediation in situations such as bullying

and other forms of social exclusion

Web 2.0 elements: An OpenSim virtual world

with avatars was used as a safe place for pu-

pils to role-play in conflict situations and

learn about how to communicate in and me-

diate such situations.

Problems: Some technical problems in

schools that lacked up-to-date computers or

had restrictions due to internet firewalls or

filters.

Lessons learned: An application such as

Avatar@School should be used as part of a

wider social integration strategy.

36



BREAKOUT EU Socrates project focused on crime

prevention and offender rehabilitation

Web 2.0 element: The project used applica-

tions such as weblogs, forums and podcasts

to promote communication among students

at risk, teachers, probation services and

youth offending teams.

Problems: Resistance of organisational cul-

tures to adopt the project approach („action

learning“) – lack of sufficient participation on

the collaboration platform.

Lessons learned: Established practices of

hierarchic organisations are difficult to over-

come. Yet, Web 2.0 applications can provide

an environment for students at risk that is

external to their normal patterns and

vehicles of social interaction and they may

engage in a self-help support culture.

Conecta Joven Large regional project in Catalonia

aimed at e-inclusion of marginalised

social groups involving 23 community

support centres focused on adult

workplace and lifelong learning

Web 2.0 elements: The project provides

hands-on ICT training and blended learning

opportunities with Web 2.0 features.

Problems: Difficulty of attracting funding to

secure sustainability and potential extension

of the activities to other localities.

Lessons learned: The key success factor of

the project is voluntary participation of

young trainers and motivators and continuity

of their work on the local level.

Cyberhus Non profit organisation that provides a

safe online club environment for kids

and teens including counselling by vo-

lunteers

Web 2.0 elements: The online environment

offers a wide range of tools such as weblogs,

discussion forum, instant messaging and oth-

ers.

Problems: Good online counselling (e.g. on

how to face problems in school) required

better and different interaction tools.

Lessons learned: Implementation of a flex-

ible platform and tool set allowed enriching

the interaction with the youngsters.

37



EduCoRe EU Gruntvig project focused on people

that suffer from physical disabilities

after an accident or illness that

threaten their employability and parti-

cipation in society

Web 2.0 elements: A set of Web 2.0 tools

(e.g. blog, wiki, forum) allowed a blended

training and counselling approach for people

in the physical rehabilitation process (hospit-

al, rehabilitation centre, home).

Problems: Initial training content and setting

was not appropriate for patients with physic-

al disabilities; some scepticism amongst

medical staff.

Lessons learned: User needs & requirements

must be analysed thoroughly and organisa-

tional contexts fully taken into account.

FreqOUT! Initiative managed by the independent

charity Vital Regeneration that works

with deprived communities in bor-

oughs in London (funded by public

grants and private sponsorships)

Web 2.0 elements: Use of several tools for

communication, social networking and con-

tent sharing and presentation.

Problems: Project-by-project based work

with hard to reach social groups under the

pressure of funding programmes. For ex-

ample, longer intervention is often needed

to reach, train and engage creative people

from deprived communities.

Lessons learned: Strong barriers to learning

require differentiated methods of involve-

ment; importance of demonstrating impact

to sponsors and mainstreaming of successful

projects.

HiStory EU Lifelong Learning project focused

on e-inclusion of senior people who

tell their stories of personally experi-

enced historical events and develop-

ments

Web 2.0 elements: Primarily weblogs for

writing, aggregating and commenting on

personal stories.

Problems: Some reluctance of seniors to

commit to personal contributions with ICT;

difficult to customise tools (e.g. multilingual-

ity).

Lessons learned: Good guidance and support

is necessary, e.g. workshops with seniors to

explain the project approach, step-by-step

guide on how to use tools.

38



ICONET EU Leonardo project aimed to develop

and promote tools for evaluation of in-

formal vocational skills of students

gained in extra-curricular experiences

Web 2.0 elements: Web 2.0 features in a

train-the-trainer tool, forums to share ideas

and experiences.

Problems: Scepticism about adoption of the

interview and validation tools in routine

practice.

Lessons learned: Adoption of the tools and

recognition of validated informal skills by po-

tential employers will require changes in

mindsets and practices.

Mixopolis Portal of the German national Schulen

ans Netz initiative that wants to ac-

company young people with migration

background (but also others) in voca-

tional advice and finding a job.

Web 2.0 elements: Portal with several com-

munication and networking tools (e.g. wiki,

forum, poll, social bookmarking).

Problems: Attracting and retaining users

from the target groups.

Lessons learned: Need to systematically in-

volve third parties and multipliers such as

schools, migrant organisations, youth centres

and others.

MOSEP EU Leonardo project focused on teach-

ers and vocational counsellors working

with students who prepare the next

phase of their education or a vocation-

al career

Web 2.0 elements: E-Portfolio software (Ma-

hara), Wiki and video podcasts for train-the-

trainer approach.

Problems: Different educational cultures and

requirements of participating institutions, tu-

tors and learners necessitated developing a

broad picture of possible e-portfolio uses,

processes and outcomes.

Lessons learned: E-portfolio adoption re-

quires promoting a collaborative teacher role

and a change in institutional mindsets and

practices.

Mundo

de Estrellas

32 public health service hospitals in

Andalusia that since 2000 provide ICT

to school-age children to allow for

learning, social community and well-

being

Web 2.0 elements: Personal Learning Envir-

onment with access to forums, online games

and tools for sharing of experiences.

Problems: Mainly technical issues and in-

creasing expectations of users of online fea-

tures, i.e. upgrade infrastructure to provide

new applications, services and a wider range

of content.

Lessons learned: A well-balanced platform

offering (i.e. learning, community and recre-

ation), integration within hospital environ-

ment, and engagement of families and carers

must be achieved.

39



Nettilukio The Internet Upper Secondary School

(Finland) that allows people with diffi-

culties to attend a regular school cur-

riculum to gain a school diploma (start

funding by ESF, national funding for

regular operation)

Web 2.0 elements: Virtual classroom and

conferencing, wikis, forums, weblogs (incl.

personal learning portfolio and diary).

Problems: Some initial problems with the vir-

tual classroom and conferencing technology

(loading time, communication features, etc.).

Lessons learned: Importance of finding a

good balance between self-directed learning

and communication with tutors, peers and

the wider school community in order to stay

in contact and encourage the learners.

Notschool UK DfES funded-project aimed to re-

engage young people who have be-

come disaffected in traditional school

environments or excluded from school

due to behaviour or other circum-

stances; involves some 500 young

people each year

Web 2.0 elements: Several tools for virtual

presence, enhancing basic skills and allowing

for social community (tutors, peers and oth-

er community members).

Problems: Intermediaries between home

and school must be dedicated to following

innovative and unconventional methods. Ini-

tial difficulties in assessing measurable learn-

ing gains and securing formal certification.

Lessons learned: Disengaged students per-

form better when taken out of a standards-

driven school environment, as there is no

fear of failure or pressure to achieve. A con-

structivist approach with personalised, self-

directed and community-supported learning

empowers learners and removes many of

the barriers to learning.

Pinokio EU Comenius project involving pre-

school and primary school children,

teachers and parents to promote inter-

cultural dialogue against social exclu-

sion of immigrants

Web 2.0 elements: Weblogs, ebooks, slide-

share and other tools for producing and

sharing stories.

Problems: Promoting co-creation in a school

environment where traditionally the teacher

is expected to mediate content and assess

learning achievements.

Lessons learned: Combining traditional story

telling (fables) with new media provides fer-

tile ground for pedagogical innovation, e.g.

co-creation of narratives allows for discuss-

ing and better understanding of processes

such as social exclusion.

40



rePlay EU FP7-ICT project that develops and

trials a game platform for social (re-)

integration of marginalised young

people, meant to be used by schools in

deprived areas and re-education pro-

grammes in centres for young offend-

ers

Web 2.0 elements: Social interaction mainly

within the game and face-to-face with ther-

apist, teacher or social worker, however, on-

line applications such as a discussion forum

may be integrated.

Problems: Some initial problems were tech-

nical robustness and design for boys and

girls; possible difficulty to achieve market

take-up.

Lessons learned: Need for high flexibility of

the learning environment, e.g. different user

profiles and con-tent related to specific pre-

ventive and intervention programs.

Roots

&

Routes

EU Leonardo project aimed to engage

marginalised young people between

15 to 25 in creative activities, bring

them in contact with professionals

from the arts and creative sector, and

pave a route towards further learning

and career development

Web 2.0 elements: Weblogs, social network-

ing and multi-media sharing tools supple-

ment and build upon vocational internships,

summer schools and other face-to-face

learning opportunities.

Problems: Engaging the target groups and

establishing close connections with vocation-

al training centres and the professional world

of cultural and creative production.

Lessons learned: Success requires high visib-

ility (branding), ambassadors and multipliers

in the communities, and role models for the

talented young people.

Savvy Chavvy Initiative of On Road Media (UK) that

provides young people from the Gypsy

community with a safe place to share

stories, podcasts and blogs about their

culture (funded by School for Social

Entrepreneurs and UnLtd awards)

Web 2.0 elements: Social networking (Ning),

discussion forums and media sharing tools

(e.g. YouTube); leaders from the social com-

munity administrate and moderate the site.

Problems: Initial lack of interest and buy-in

by the target community that had faced ra-

cism and exclusion on other social network-

ing platforms.

Lessons learned: Importance of gaining cred-

ibility and trust, finding community ‘champi-

ons’, ownership and moderation of the regis-

tration-based social networking environment

by the community.

41



Schome Park Open University UK project that ex-

plored new educational possibilities of

co-learning and peer mentoring in an

inclusive community; participants were

young people aged 13-17 with diffi-

culties in mainstream schooling (fun-

ded by NAGTY, The Innovation Unit,

Becta)

Web 2.0 elements: Second Life virtual world

with several communication and media-shar-

ing features.

Problems: Lack of fast internet access and e-

skills by some members of the target group;

educational staff asked for more direction

(e.g. clearer alignment to curriculum) and

technical support; difficult to monitor and

assess learning progress and outcomes.

Lessons learned: Open learning models chal-

lenge traditional school settings, in particu-

lar, teacher-student roles and assessment of

learning outcomes. Teachers are likely to fear

loosing control and need pedagogical as well

technical training to develop collaborative e-

learning skills.

Seniorkom.at National portal for engaging senior

people in a broad range of recreation-

al, learning and community activities

(funded and promoted by several Aus-

trian senior organisations and media,

software and communications pro-

viders)

Web 2.0 elements: Portal with a broad range

of functionality from weblogs to web radio,

also taking care of easy and barrier-free ac-

cess to features and content

Problems: Providing, marketing and main-

taining many opportunities for e-participa-

tion. Keeping the high-level of support by

promoters and sponsors.

Lessons learned: Strong motivation from,

and self-organisation by, the user community

is key („a web-site of seniors for seniors“).

TRIO Regional vocational training portal fun-

ded and managed by the Administra-

tion of the Region of Tuscany

Web 2.0 elements: Moodle based platform

offering e-learning courses with additional

features such as forums and wikis.

Problems: Constant concerns are learner

drop-out and retention rates in vocational

training and lifelong learning.

Lessons learned: Communication and collab-

oration features have been implemented, yet

they are more frequently used among tutors.

The learners must be motivated and skilled

in using the tools as part of the curriculum.

42



Web in the

Hood

E-skills training and community build-

ing initiative for adults in deprived

communities in the Netherlands fun-

ded by the Commissie dag indeling, Or-

anje Fonds, EQUAL-ESF

Web 2.0 elements: A web toolbox that al-

lows easy creation and enrichment of user

websites and communication (e.g. a module

for starting an activity and inviting people to

join).

Problems: Social community workers are not

necessarily interested in ICT for their clients;

also the approach to address all (not only

marginalised people) and encourage people

to care for each other was much harder to

implement than the initiators thought.

Lessons learned: The core of the initiative is

the „blended“ approach with physical meet-

ing places for socialising and exchanging

ideas as well as the online community. The

idea that the participants could eventually

organise and manage Web in the Hood

themselves has not yet been realised. A pro-

fessional “animator” is still very important to

drive participation.

XenoCLIPse EU eLearning project aimed to em-

power and make visible interests of

minority and migrants communities

and promote media work/careers of

students from these communities

Web 2.0 elements: Video clips created by the

participants are presented online and a Web

2.0 based directory is offered for people in-

terested in reaching the producers (e.g.

journalists, media companies).

Problems: Facilitating access to digital pro-

duction tools and development of media

skills and products is only the first step.

Lessons learned: Involvement of mainstream

media organizations and associations is ne-

cessary so that community empowerment

has societal impact.

Table 10: Overview of problems encountered and lessons learned

5.3 Discussion of the main problem areas and lessons learned

Below we summarise main problem areas of, and lessons learned by, the projects. Selec-

ted examples illustrate critical issues. Many lessons learned about success factors may

be transferable to other projects contexts.

Resistant organisational cultures

The majority of case studies present projects that involved individual or a group of or-

ganisations from the educational sector, i.e. schools, universities, vocational and adult &

lifelong learning centres. Other projects involved rather different organisational cul-

tures, for example, social workers (Web in the Hood), offending and drugs services

(Breakout), hospitals and physical rehabilitation centres (EduCoRe).

43

Some of the projects had to face reactions by the organisational cultures that ranged

from active resistance (e.g. against using collaboration tools) to a moderate, and prob-

ably realistic, degree of scepticism by the professional staff (e.g. about usefulness of the

results in routine practice).

The strongest resistance was felt in the Breakout project, which involved organisations

that are focused on crime prevention and offender rehabilitation. For example, there

were tensions between and within professional groups because of „territorial boundar-

ies“, hierarchy and competition among units. This contributed to a lack of sufficient

commitment and participation in the project’s „action learning” approach.

The need to instigate change in organisational thinking and practice was also experi-

enced by the Notschool initiative, where intermediaries between the young people and

the project team had to commit to following innovative and unconventional methods.

A less obvious example is Web in the Hood, which challenged current social work prac-

tices (at least in the Netherlands). It could be expected that social work organisations

would be very positive about an initiative aimed at increasing e-skills and Web activity

of members of deprived communities. However, the experience of this project demon-

strates that this is not always the case, or at least not always a priority. Most import-

antly, Web in the Hood took a different approach to the dominant paradigm. While pro-

fessional social workers mainly focus on marginalised people, the Web in the Hood ad-

dressed everybody and aimed to foster a sense of community spirit and encourage

people to care for each other (Kuiper, 2007).

Projects that involved educational organisations, e.g. schools, distance learning uni-

versities and vocational training platforms also identified issues of organisational cul-

ture.

Those issues relate to the open educational approaches for which Web 2.0 environ-

ments and tools were used. Open learning models challenge traditional school settings,

in particular, teacher-student roles and assessment of learning outcomes.

A good example is Schome Park, which used a Second Life virtual world to explore new

educational possibilities of co-learning and peer mentoring in an inclusive community.

Some staff members and students found it difficult to re-imagine teacher-student roles

and how education is delivered. Teachers asked for more coordination and pedagogical

and technical support.

The need to promote a collaborative and co-creative teacher role not only to teachers

but also to students, parents and other stakeholders was also expressed in projects

which experienced “no resistance”. For example, in the Pinokio project, which involved

primary schools that establish a rather traditional image of the teacher.

It should be clear that in the school environment, projects often face problems that are

associated with timetabling and additional burdens of staff. School staff working under

pressure with time constraints are very likely to see new projects as a nuisance rather

than a potential benefit.

Key lessons learned: Projects involving organisations such as offending and drugs ser-

vices may have to cope with considerable resistance by organisational culture and ten-

sions because of professional rivalry, competition for resources, disciplinary differences

and disputes.

44

Introducing an online collaboration platform will very likely have no impact on their or-

ganisational culture and practices; only little use of such platforms can be expected.

In order to promote unconventional approaches and methods, ingrained paradigms of

professional communities must be identified and addressed, whether from medical

staff, social workers or teachers.

Open educational approaches that use Web 2.0 environments and tools will challenge

traditional school settings and teacher-student roles, encouraging much-needed

change. Teachers are likely to fear loosing control and need pedagogical as well as tech-

nical training to develop collaborative e-learning skills.

Measuring learning gains and securing formal certification

Some of the projects had to deal with issues of measuring learning gains (e.g. to demon-

strate impact) and of securing formal certification of outcomes. These issues are closely

related to the objectives of educational institutions and their core role of providing cer-

tified qualifications.

ICONET developed and promoted procedures and tools that enable validation of relev-

ant vocational skills gained by students during extra-curricular experiences. The project

focused on teachers in secondary general schools and careers counsellors. There re-

mained some scepticism about the impact on routine practices, i.e. wider adoption and

use of the interview and validation tools. Recognition of learners’ informal skills by po-

tential employers also seemed relatively uncertain, e.g. if the formal school leaving cer-

tificate was not convincing.

Schome Park found it difficult to identify progress in learning in the Second Life virtual

world, because the explorative and communicative methods allowed students much

more freedom than a traditional learning environment. Teachers asked for more direc-

tion (e.g. clearer alignment to curriculum) and worried about how to assess learning

outcomes.

Notschool also experienced initial difficulties in assessing measurable learning gains and

secure formal accreditation. Yet these difficulties could be overcome by developing a

scheme of point scoring qualifications that enable initiatives to award certificates recog-

nised by a national awarding body.

Key lessons learned: Projects that use Web 2.0 approaches must address the issue of

how to assess learning progress and outcomes. As such, projects are often considered to

be pilots, with the expectation that some of the experiences are transferable into

routine practice. Yet such practices will not flourish if alignment with curriculum goals is

missing, or cannot be adequately assessed.

Measuring learning gains is also important in contexts other than formal educational in-

stitutions such as social inclusion programmes for deprived communities or social work

with talented young people from migrant and ethnic minority groups. While formal cer-

tification may not be an issue in such cases, demonstrating some form of impact usually

is (e.g. re-engagement in learning, presentation of creative products, etc.).

Active participation of target groups

Some projects found it difficult to reach the expected level of participation by their tar-

get groups.

45

In the ALPEUNED project, the Spanish National University for Distance Learning (UNED)

implemented forums for disabled students to allow for peer communication and coun-

selling. Yet there was a lack of student motivation, only 482 disabled students out of a

total of 4026 enrolled visited a forum. There was much „chatting“ which was not moder-

ated and channelled towards productive ends. As the communication also included is-

sues concerning the university administration the “chatting” may also have been unwel-

come and a potential threat of community lobbying.

AbilityNet implemented Assistive Technology Wiki to allow for active online participa-

tion of more members, but the level of participation was rather low; most content was

generated by only a few members.

TRIO, the regional vocational training portal of the Region of Tuscany implemented com-

munication and collaboration features to counter learner drop-out and increase reten-

tion. Yet the features were more frequently used among tutors than students.

Mixopolis, a portal of the German national Schulen ans Netz initiative that wants to ac-

company young people with migration background (but also others) in vocational ori-

entation and job finding also found it difficult to attract and retain the target group in an

online community.

Seniorkom.at seems to fare much better by not only providing seniors with a broad

range of Web 2.0 functionality but motivating and empowering them to self-organise.

HiStory faced some reluctance by seniors to commit to personal contributions with ICT,

which could be overcome by offering workshops to explain the project approach and

how to use tools.

Sometimes project managers have too high expectations of active participation by the

users of a portal or community website. According to the widely accepted 90-9-1 rule

for user participation in online communities, 90% of users do not contribute at all, 9%

from time to time, and 1% a lot and account for most contributions. Important is to re-

tain and motivate the 9%, and probably more, of occasional contributors (Nielson,

2006). This may to the “stickiness” of a website.

Some further issues in community participation that relate to the special situation of

working with groups such as ethnic minorities are addressed in a separate section be-

low.

Key lessons learned: Web 2.0 applications per se do not necessarily drive participation

and communication among members of the target community.

Existing diverse interests of different potential users must be identified and taken into

account and the particular needs and requirements of the users addressed thoroughly.

According to the project objectives, third parties and multipliers such as schools, cultur-

al organisations, community and youth centres must be involved systematically.

Strong motivation and empowerment of users may help to achieve self-organisation,

“stickiness” and growth of an online social community. In most cases, however, support

by dedicated “community managers” will be needed.

Web 2.0 applications invite “chatting”. This can be a starting point of peer communica-

tion and community building, but often there is need of moderation and channelling the

communication towards productive ends. Unwelcome and threatening contributions

must be dealt with seriously.

46

User needs and requirements

User needs and requirements must be analysed thoroughly. Some cases seemingly were

unable to identify and address them until later phases of the project.

EduCoRe worked with people in the physical rehabilitation process (hospital, rehabilita-

tion centre, home) and experienced that the initial training content and setting was not

appropriate for the patients.

Mundo de Estrellas seems to have achieved a well-balanced offering of tools and ser-

vices for learning, community and recreation of children, integration within hospital en-

vironment, and engagement of families and carers only after some trial and error.

Online learning and inclusion programmes using Web 2.0 tools and methods will often

have to cope with lack of digital literacy of participants young and old. (cf. Breakout,

Conecta Jovens, HiStory, Web in the Hood and others).

Initial lack of e-skills in any case necessitates a “blended approach”, which also must

tackle other barriers to learning and convince people that it is worth the effort.

For example, Web in the Hood found that quite some time of their „animators“ is neces-

sary to convince people that they can make websites that support their own activities

and are beneficial in their daily life.

Young people “at risk” in the first place need a web of supportive social relationships

they accept and Web 2.0 approaches may provide elements of such as web.

Breakout experienced that young people „at risk“ are unlikely to consult public services

(e.g. drug misuse prevention), but a Web 2.0 environment may allow for providing a

“self-help support culture” that is external to their normal patterns and vehicles of so-

cial interaction.

Notschool proved that a constructivist approach with personalised, self-directed and

community-supported methods can empower learners and remove many of the barriers

to learning.

Cyberhus found that providing more and better online counselling (e.g. on how to face

problems in school) required a Web 2.0 environment for rich input by, and interaction

with, the youngsters.

Key lessons learned: Identifying and meeting the needs and requirements of the target

groups is one of the key success factors of projects that use Web 2.0 tools for e-inclusion

and learning. The tools as such are not a panacea.

The organisational frameworks and working conditions of organisations such as hospit-

als, offending and drugs services, schools and other institutions of formal education

must be taken into account. Such organisations and their staff have their own needs and

requirements.

Initial lack of e-skills always requires a “blended approach”. In the first place barriers to

learning must be addressed and people convinced that engagement in learning and so-

cial activity on the Web is worth the effort.

If there are already some e-skills, they may still vary considerably (level, selectivity, tools

used) because of differences in social background and cognitive factors such as learning

styles. Use of a peer mentoring approach can drive learning gains as well as community

building.

47

Because Web 2.0 applications can be used to connect, communicate and co-create they

are more likely to meet students’ needs and expectations of new tools and allow for

constructivist pedagogical approaches.

A constructivist approach with personalised, self-directed and community-supported

learning can remove many of the barriers to learning people young and old experience

with formal educational settings.

Project-to-project work with hard to reach communities

Some projects found it difficult to secure continuous funding to allow for sustainability

and potential extension of the activities to other social groups and localities. These are

projects that work with deprived communities and are funded by regional agencies, city

councils, foundations and individual private sponsors.

Conecta Joven focuses on e-inclusion of adults in 23 Catalan community support

centres. Young people are trained and then serve as trainers and motivators for the

adults. The success of the initiative largely depends on ensuring continuity of the work

of the trainers and motivators on the local level.

Roots & Routes works with talented young people from deprived communities in the

city area of Rotterdam and received funding by the city’s Art and Culture Service and EU

Culture and Leonardo da Vinci programmes. The work follows a mixed approach that

combines vocational internships, summer schools, etc. with Web 2.0 elements. Sustain-

ability and impact depends on many factors, in particular, role models of success as mo-

tivation for the target communities, participating organisations and funding bodies and

sponsors.

FreqOUT! runs a similar project-to-project programme and experienced that funding re-

gimes have significant impact: Small funding streams and strict output targets make it

difficult to recruit and engage hard-to-reach groups, manage a number of fragmented

projects that work with artists, cultural centres and funding sources, and demonstrate

the impact of the programme with hard data.

Savvy Chavvy provided young people from the Gypsy community with a safe place on-

line to share experiences and creative expressions. The project found it difficult to gain

trust and buy-in by the target community. In order to prevent racism, the social net-

working platform had to be restricted to legitimate users and leaders from the com-

munity trained to administrate and moderate the site themselves.

XenoCLIPse enabled members of ethnic minorities and migrant communities to produce

and present online video clips about their culture. In order to get from community em-

powerment through media skills to societal impact a strong involvement of mainstream

media organizations and associations would be necessary.

Key lessons learned: Funding schemes often lack awareness of the difficulties in devel-

oping and sustaining skills development and social inclusion programmes. Longer inter-

vention time and differentiated methods of involvement are necessary to reach, train

and engage creative people from deprived communities.

Projects with communities that have faced racism and social exclusion in the first place

need to build trust and achieve buy-in by leading community members. Web 2.0 envir-

onments for such communities require strict management to prevent racist attacks or

48

being taken over by hardliners of the community that do not commit to the objectives

of the project.

A series of projects that tend to fragment and become unmanageable needs evaluation

and mainstreaming of successful approaches and methods.

Regular collection of data on interventions and results over a longer period of time is

necessary to allow for demonstrating the impact of skills development and social inclu-

sion programmes.

A wider societal impact requires involvement of many organisations and businesses.

Media and other organisations of the cultural and creative sector can play an important

role as young people are often trained in skills for a job career in these sectors.

Issues of technology access and flexibility

Several projects faced issues that had to do with technical infrastructure, implementa-

tion of new tools and lack of sufficient technical support.

The large-scale and long-term project Mundo de Estrellas found it difficult to upgrade

ICT infrastructure in the hospitals for providing new applications, services and a wider

range of content.

Avatar@School reported some technical problems in schools that lacked up-to-date

computers and because of internet firewalls or filters.

Nettilukio had to overcome some problems with virtual classroom and conferencing

technology.

HiStory found it difficult to customize their weblogs to allow for multilingual interfaces

and contributions.

TRIO and Cyberhus needed to implement a more flexible platform to offer new tools for

enriching the interaction between users and tutors or counsellors.

Schome Park noted that in work with members of deprived communities availability of

state-of-the-art computers and fast internet connection cannot be taken for granted.

FreqOUT! reported about lack of state-of-the-art technical equipment and support in

several of their projects because of low funding.

Web in the Hood wanted to make it possible for everybody to create an own website

very easily and developed a special web toolbox to achieve this goal.

Breakout had to implement a hierarchical website structure in order to comply with de-

mands of high security and confidentiality, but the interface, navigation and low inter-

activity was felt to be off-putting by young participants.

RePlay developed and trialled a high-tech game platform for simulating consequences of

offending behaviour. The original plans for the Breakout project included using such in-

teractive games, yet costs were found to be prohibitive.

Avatar@School found that the students liked their OpenSim virtual world for role play-

ing with avatars in social conflict situations, yet that the use of such technology should

be embedded in a wider social integration strategy.

49

Key lessons learned: Appropriateness of particular technical tools to the project pur-

poses must be reflected and in most projects the use of ICT can be but one element, e.g.

as part of a blended learning approach.

Projects that target deprived communities must be aware of lack of ownership or access

to state-of-the-art computers and fast internet connection in such communities.

Web 2.0 projects that want to use a range of tools in an integrated and scalable manner

may have to implement a robust and flexible platform.

Hierarchical website structures with off-putting interfaces, navigation and low interactiv-

ity or barriers such as internet firewalls or filters can get in the way of Web 2.0 ap-

proaches.

Large-scale and long-term projects will very likely face issues of technology obsoles-

cence and increased user expectations of connectedness, interactivity and richness in

media.

50

6 RECOMMENDATION FOR SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS IN WEB 2.0

LEARNING AND SOCIAL INCLUSION

The sections below provide recommendations on how to realise successful projects in

Web 2.0 learning and social inclusion. The set of recommendations is not a comprehens-

ive checklist of “to do’s” or meant as a project management tool.

Rather the intention is to emphasise and make productive important lessons learned by

a larger number of projects which used Web 2.0 tools and methods for promoting learn-

ing and social inclusion of different groups of participants.

Many of the projects focused on social inclusion by developing e-skills and Web-based

activities as part of a blended approach. Not every e-learning project will have social in-

clusion as a core objective, but will certainly benefit also from recommendations drawn

from such e-inclusion projects.

6.1 Overcoming resistance of organisational cultures

Expect facing resistance by organisational cultures to adopt a Web 2.0 approach of open

collaborative practices. Dominant paradigms, mindsets and practices of many organisa-

tional cultures, in particular, hierarchical and bureaucratic ones, will work against such

an approach.

Be prepared that among participants who are willing to participate there can be consid-

erable tensions because of professional rivalry, competition for resources among units,

disciplinary differences and disputes.

Identify objectives and practices of the organisational cultures that could benefit partic-

ularly from using Web 2.0 tools. Demonstrating tangible benefits may be the trigger to

impact on and achieve some change in organisational cultures.

Also secure support by important intermediaries (e.g. school directors or social workers)

who should commit to following innovative and unconventional methods.

6.2 Meeting user needs and requirements in e-skilling & inclusion

Identify properly the needs and requirements of the primary target groups of the pro-

ject (e.g. students and teachers; young people “at risk” and their families). Meeting their

needs and requirements is the most important criteria of success.

Understand and take account of the specific organisational frameworks and working

conditions of the involved organisations (e.g. hospital, probation service, school or voca-

tional training centre). Such organisations and their staff have their own specific needs

and requirements.

Consider thoroughly the appropriateness of particular technologies to the project pur-

poses. In most projects the use of ICT can be but one element, e.g. as part of a blended

learning approach.

Use a blended approach if there is an initial lack of e-skills by target groups and also oth-

er barriers to participation must be overcome (e.g. lack of motivation and trust).

Consider also differences in gender roles and patterns of behaviour in ethnic minorities

and migrant communities that may determine levels of participation and learning styles.

51

Be aware that a project in a deprived community cannot expect ownership or access to

state-of-the-art computers and fast internet connection by the target groups. Also ICT in

schools and other places of learning may be out-dated. Thus appropriate access to ICT

must be organised and secured for the duration of the project (and beyond).

Be prepared that specific software, equipment for creative work, etc. may be needed

and that tools may need to be customized (e.g. to allow for easy use, multilinguality,

etc.).

Re-evaluate the user needs and requirements in the course of the project. Some import-

ant elements may have been overlooked or not fully addressed in the first phases of the

project.

6.3 Promoting open Web 2.0 based educational practices in schools

Be aware that open educational approaches that use Web 2.0 tools challenge the dom-

inant paradigms and practices of schools, in particular, teacher-student roles.

Help teachers re-envision and change their professional role from dispenser of subject-

based knowledge to facilitator (coach, mentor) of students’ self-directed and collaborat-

ive learning.

Address the issue of how to monitor progress in learning and assess learning outcomes

allowing for formal certification. Innovative educational practices will not flourish if

alignment with curriculum goals is missing and learning outcomes cannot be adequately

assessed.

Be prepared that teachers will fear loosing control and need institutional commitment

and appropriate pedagogical as well as technical support.

Demonstrate to teachers how to facilitate successfully self-directed and collaborative

learning of students. Also point out how the teachers can benefit new competences and

skills they acquire themselves.

Make sure that Web 2.0 initiatives are not left to individual teachers and that those who

lead by example and share expertise are recognised appropriately.

Provide boards and supervisors of educational institutions with suggestions on how to

scrutinise whether an institution is employing Web 2.0 approaches. That teachers and

students use weblogs, wikis or e-portfolios to document and communicate project res-

ults may serve as a good indicator.

6.4 Using appropriate e-learning & inclusion methods

Convince people that gaining e-skills and engaging in social activity on the Web is worth

the effort (e.g. easier access to vital information and services, connect and learn togeth-

er with peers, role models for job careers, etc.).

Identify already available e-skills and other competences which may vary because of dif-

ferences in social background, gender, and cognitive factors such as learning style.

Combine face-to-face meetings of participants (e.g. workshops, summer schools, etc.)

with Web presence and activity (e.g. Weblogs, social networking, media sharing on pop-

ular platforms such as YouTube or Flickr).

52

Use a peer mentoring approach that can drive learning as well as community building.

Privilege constructivist approaches of self-directed and community-supported learning

that can remove many of the barriers to learning people young and old experience with

formal educational settings.

Allow for relevant learning experiences, learning in which real world problems are ad-

dressed, learners work collaboratively, and learning content and results are reflected

critically.

Suggest learners to use an e-portfolio or weblog for documenting and reflecting on

learning progress and results as well as sharing creative work they are proud of.

6.5 Driving participation on community websites

Be aware that Web 2.0 applications per se do not drive participation and communica-

tion among members of the target community.

Provide for a robust and flexible technical platform particularly if several Web 2.0 tools

should work in an integrated fashion and the environment capable to scale and respond

to new demands in the future.

Consider that different users groups will have diverse interests and want to use the web-

site for different purposes.

Do not nourish the notion of “build it and they will come”, rather expect to not immedi-

ately achieve a high level of active participation of the envisaged target groups of the

website.

Gain trust and buy-in by leading members of the target user community. This is particu-

larly important with communities that have faced severe social exclusion (e.g. ethnic

minorities or migrant communities).

Identify and involve people who are highly motivated to work on certain issues and help

them to self-organise with Web 2.0 tools and achieve “stickiness” of the online com-

munities.

Empower website users to achieve something themselves and share experiences and

own content. Websites that nourish a top-down approach of delivering content (e.g.

learning material) typically show little growth in terms of user base and contribution.

Provide or train online community managers that are skilled to identify topics of inter-

est, understand online user behaviours, can engage users and moderate discussions.

Moderate and channel discussions towards productive ends, e.g. mutual understanding

of different concerns of participants, consensus about critical issues, etc.). Address un-

welcome and threatening contributions seriously.

Provide a safe place for communities that have faced severe social exclusion such as ra-

cism. Such websites for social networking and sharing experiences require strict (self-)

management and moderation to prevent unwelcome visitors or being taken over by

hardliners of the community that do not commit to the objectives of the project.

53

6.6 Securing sustainability and impact

Make clear to policy makers that ICT supported learning and social inclusion allows

people to develop competences that are necessary to participate successfully in the

knowledge society.

Expect that policy makers and funding agencies will lack an understanding of the diffi-

culties in working with hard to reach target groups. Explain what such work demands

and provide eye-opening examples of problem situations and how they might be over-

come.

Be prepared that small funding streams will make it difficult to develop and sustain a

learning and social inclusion programme for such social groups. It may be hard to recruit

and engage participants, longer intervention time and differentiated methods of in-

volvement may be necessary, and strict output targets not met.

Systematically identify and involve third parties and multipliers that are important for

achieving the core project objectives.

Consider that a wider societal impact requires the involvement of many organisations

and businesses. Media and other organisations of the cultural and creative sectors can

play an important role, as young people can be trained for careers in these sectors.

Regularly collect data on interventions and results (e.g. re-engagement of people in vo-

cational training, participation of talented young people in creative activities, media cov-

erage, etc.)

Identify and present role models of success as motivation for the target communities,

participating organisations, funding bodies and sponsors.

If undertaking a series of different projects that work with several supporting organisa-

tions and different funding sources, observe if they become increasingly fragmented

and unmanageable.

Evaluate the projects and try to mainstream particularly successful approaches and

methods.

54

7 THE CASE STUDIES AND THE LANDSCAPE OF LEARNING 2.0 FOR

INCLUSION

7.1 Introduction

In this section, we draw together the results of the profiling and analysis of the Links-up

case studies in order to summarise their features and characteristics, and set these

within the ‘landscape of Learning 2.0 for inclusion’. We re-visit the key dynamics and

processes that have shaped this landscape and assess the extent to which the cases

covered reflect these dynamics and processes. We consider the extent to which and in

what ways the cases support the major policies in the field; the conceptual thinking

around social inclusion and the needs of excluded groups.

Against this background, we also re-visit the review of the ‘landscape’ of Learning 2.0 as

portrayed in the Links-up Report on ‘Review of State of the Art’, which was carried out in

work package 1 of the project, and discuss what further contribution the case study

analysis has made to our understanding of this ‘landscape’ and what are the remaining

‘gaps’ in our knowledge.

The case studies provided in this Report can be seen as ‘exemplars’ of a ‘landscape of

Learning 2.0 for inclusion’. The whole description of each of the 24 cases is free available

from the project website18. This landscape is embryonic and still-evolving. It represents

different views on the causes of social exclusion and different positions on how exclu-

sion can be addressed through the use of ICTs and particularly the use of ‘Web 2.0 for

learning’. As noted in our previous review of the literature and research in the field, this

‘landscape’ of ‘Inclusive Learning 2.0’ in Europe is driven by four inter-connected dy-

namics or drivers, as illustrated in the ‘inter-connectivity map’ show in Figure 1. These

drivers are:

| the policy fields shaping programmes and interventions in the domain;

| conceptual and theoretical work in the field, mainly derived from the academic liter-

ature and from research;

| the ‘lifeworlds’ of excluded groups, which shapes their situation and needs;

| the world of ‘communities of practice’ where programmes and interventions are de-

livered to support excluded target groups.


55

Figure 1: Key drivers in the ‘landscape’ of Inclusive Learning 2.0

7.2 The policy context

State of the art

First we will present some policy figures:

| 75 % of the population aged 20-64 should be employed.

| 3% of the EU's GDP should be invested in R&D.

| The share of early school leavers should be under 10% and at least 40% of the young-

er generation should have a tertiary degree.

| 20 million less people should be at risk of poverty.

There are seven ‘flagship’ initiatives specified to implement the programme, and both

education and ICTs are seen as key drivers in these initiatives. Again, several of these

flagships directly relate to ICTs, learning and inclusion. These are:

| "Youth on the move" to enhance the performance of education systems and to facil-

itate the entry of young people to the labour market.

| "A digital agenda for Europe" to speed up the roll-out of high-speed internet and

reap the benefits of a digital single market for households and firms.

| "An agenda for new skills and jobs" to modernise labour markets and empower

people by developing their of skills throughout the lifecycle with a view to increase

labour participation and better match labour supply and demand, including through

labour mobility.

| "European platform against poverty" to ensure social and territorial cohesion such

that the benefits of growth and jobs are widely shared and people experiencing

56

poverty and social exclusion are enabled to live in dignity and take an active part in

society.

The main EU E&T policy instrument is the strategic framework for European cooperation

in education and training ("ET 2020"), which sets key targets for education and training

in the EU. The strategic framework takes a holistic approach of education and training,

one that explicitly links education objectives to social inclusion, and which highlights the

role that can be played by ICTs.

ET2020 places ICTs at the heart of its efforts to link education objectives to social inclu-

sion through initiatives that: promote access to quality services, e.g., transport, e-inclu-

sion, health, social services within the sphere of education and training; make effective

use of information and communication technologies to broaden and deepen participa-

tion of a spectrum of people, particularly young people; make new technologies readily

available to empower creativity and capacity for innovation.

The education and training policy field is also one of the main sources of funding for

programmes and projects aimed at addressing issues around exclusion – particularly

through the Lifelong Learning Programme. However, the emphasis placed on excluded

people and those at risk varies across the sectoral and transversal sub-programmes of

the LLP.

Policies specifically targeted at particular excluded groups include ‘youth’ policies,

policies for the unemployed and policies for older people. The key EU policy document

on youth is the 2009 Communication "An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Em-

powering. A renewed open method of coordination to address youth challenges and op-

portunities". The new strategy forms the basis for the ‘Youth in Action’ programme – a

major initiative that will take youth policy forward to the year 2013. ICTs are ‘hidden’

rather than ‘up front’ in the Youth in Action programme.

Policy for older people is supported through the ‘Active Ageing’ programme. The other

EU policy fields where there is a focus on ICTs and excluded people are in employment,

social affairs and equal opportunities; health and regional policy. These fields are less

widely developed and the attention and resources devoted to ICTs and inclusion at risk

varies across them.

The case studies in the policy context

Our earlier review of the policy context identified five key transversal themes in which

the case studies could be situated:

| Job and education mobility: Equipping people with skills to move across European

borders and across jobs in line with the ‘flexicurity’ principles appear regularly across

the policies and programmes. This entails equipping people – particularly young

people with e-skills, education and training in STEM subjects, language and other

measures which support job and education mobility.

| Modernised education and training systems: there is a policy focus on job and educa-

tion mobility that emphasizes how education and training systems can support

people to enter the labour market in their country of origin or elsewhere (e.g. the

Bologna process, ongoing work on a European Qualification Framework, Erasmus

programmes etc.). Furthermore, the policies focus improving the quality of educa-

tion systems and ensuring that young people are equipped with the right skills that

57

make young people employable now and in the future (i.e. New Skills for New Jobs

agenda and ‘flexicurity’). Finally, this also implies provision of apprenticeships, lower-

ing of drop-out rates/increased participation rates and deploying new learning tools.

| Modernised employment and labour markets are key to supporting the above and

are at the heart of Europe 2020 and the majority of policy documents addressing

people’s inclusion in society and the knowledge economy. This indicates a policy logic

in which opportunities in life are closely associated with labour market participation.

| Cultural dialogue and awareness is at the heart of both education and training

policies in the EU as well as culture policies. This component focuses on inter-cultural

dialogue and cultural awareness.

| E-inclusion has been on the forefront of European information society policies for

the last couple of years, but the focus is still mainly on economic aspects of inclusion:

access to the ICT infrastructure and e-services as well as e-skills to make people able

to participate and contribute to the European knowledge economy. This also sup-

ports the other components of the policy typology mentioned above (modernised la-

bour markets, education systems and job/education mobility).

The case studies show that the programmes and initiatives currently being implemented

in the EU that use Learning 2.0 to support social inclusion are making a contribution to

all of these thematic policy areas. However, a number of gaps can be identified. The

policy gaps we have identified come in two forms. First, the gaps in the actual provision

of EU policies and policy instruments that can support the development and implement-

ation of Learning 2.0 to support social inclusion. Second, the gaps in policy agendas and

priorities in the field that are not currently effectively supported and addressed by cur-

rent practices.

In the first case, the following findings can be summarised:

| Although EU policy has in recent years become more ‘joined-up’ and integrated, in

line with what is known in the theoretical and practitioner field as the multi-dimen-

sional nature of social inclusion, there is still a sense that some areas of policy pursue

‘parallel lines’. Whereas education and training policy links key agendas and goals in

learning with inclusion policy, e-inclusion policy and ICT policy, the same cannot be

said for employment, health and regional policies. There is a case for more ‘joined-

up’ thinking and bridging between these policy domains to help address social inclu-

sion issues.

| The knowledge base of ‘Learning 2.0 for inclusion’ is embryonic, evolving, fragmen-

ted and contested. Little is known about ‘what works’ and a culture of knowledge-

sharing has not taken root. Provision exists, for example, within the OMC, for sup-

porting trans-national co-operation between stakeholders in the field. This needs to

be built on to support better co-operation, dissemination and knowledge-sharing

and the cultivation of a stronger evidence base. This could be done, for example,

through publicising opportunities available to support knowledge sharing through

the PROGRESS Programme; working more closely with EU-funded European net-

works to build European resource/knowledge centres on specific priority themes

| Securing funding for start-ups and later securing further funding to ensure the sus-

tainability of initiatives is a common problem identified by the cases. The evidence is

that the major sources of EU funding in this field – the Lifelong Learning Programme;

the ‘Youth in Action’ Programme; the ‘Ageing Well’ programme and the IST pro-

gramme in FP7 – attach little priority to ‘Learning 2.0 for inclusion’. Dedicated action

58

lines in this field and in these programmes would greatly increase the likelihood of

innovative initiatives being developed and sustained.

In the second case, the initiatives currently being implemented in the field suggest that

further work could usefully be done to support the following policy priorities and ob-

jectives:

| EU Strategy for Youth. Action field 1: Education – states that ‘Complementary to

formal education, non-formal education for young people should be supported to

contribute to Lifelong Learning in Europe, by developing its quality, recognising its

outcomes, and integrating it better with formal education.’ The results of the case

studies suggests that, at present, initiatives in Web 2.0 for inclusive learning focus on

non-formal education as an alternative to formal education, mainly providing sup-

port for school drop-outs and those who are not able to attend school. There has

been very little work in using Web 2.0 to complement and add value to formal edu-

cation. In this case Learning 2.0 could provide a valuable contribution to reducing risk

of exclusion by improving educational performance.

| EU Strategy for Youth. Action field 2: Employment – states that “Employment policy

action in Member States and at EU level should be coordinated across the four com-

ponents of flexicurity in order to facilitate transitions from school to work or inactiv-

ity or unemployment to work. Once in work, young people should be enabled to

make upward transitions. Increase and improve investments in providing the right

skills for those jobs in demand on the labour market, with a better matching in the

short term and better anticipation in the longer term of the skills needed”. Again,

very little work appears to have been done in using Web 2.0 to develop training that

will develop ‘flexicurity’ and to link inclusion objectives to the changing needs of la-

bour markets.

| EU Strategy for Youth. Action Field 6: Social Inclusion – aims to “prevent poverty and

social exclusion among disadvantaged youth groups and break their intergeneration-

al transmission by mobilising all actors involved in the life of youth (parents, teach-

ers, social workers, health professionals, youth workers, young people themselves,

police and justice, employers.” The case studies suggest that much of the current

work targets ‘end users’ – i.e. excluded people. Although many initiatives involve ‘in-

termediaries’ – for example youth workers – their representation is lower than might

be expected. In addition, not enough initiatives work with the broader spectrum of

inter-relationships between at risk people and ‘mediators’ (family; friends; teachers

etc.).

| Europe 2020 Strategy – a key target in the strategy is “20 million less people should

be at risk of poverty”. The results of the review of literature in the field clearly high-

light the significance of poverty as a key structural dynamic in the ‘causes’ of social

exclusion. Although poverty is represented in Learning 2.0 initiatives analysed in the

case study examples, it is regarded as a ‘mediating factor’ rather than a primary in

exclusion. Initiatives directly targeting poverty and using Web 2.0 to address it are

not represented.

59

7.3 The theoretical context

State of the art

Our review of the literature showed that the theoretical and conceptual knowledge

base is contested and contradictory; it is fragmented, and there is a lack of a sound evid-

ence base on ‘what works’. In social inclusion theory, opinion is divided into three

camps: the ‘structuralists’, who emphasise the operation of structural inequalities, and

the persistence of an ‘e-underclass’; the ‘social capital’ perspective, which emphasizes

community resources and the development of community resilience to combat exclu-

sion; and the ‘life politics’ approach, which emphasizes ‘risk’ behaviours and the cultiva-

tion of individual resilience.

The first perspective has long linked social exclusion to structural factors that lead to so-

cial deprivation, albeit often mediated through family practices (Coleman & Hendry,

1999; Schoon & Bynner, 2003) This emphasizes the notion that the risks of social exclu-

sion are multi-dimensional in nature. (Burchardt, Le Grand & Piachaud, 2002) Sustained

and repetitive exposure to social and economic ills – poverty; ill-health; upheaval; un-

employment – itself saps the collective spirit and therefore ultimately increases the vul-

nerability of those exposed to social and economic pathologies. (Elstad, 1998; Berkman

& Kawachi, 2000)

The second perspective shifts the focus from an ‘underclass’ perspective to a ‘social cap-

ital’ perspective. The three main authors – James Coleman, Robert Putnam and Pierre

Bourdieu – argue in various ways that social capital is achieved through the formation of

social relationships built up over time which enable individuals to achieve more than

they would be able to achieve if they acted solely on their own (Coleman, 1988); that

social capital is linked to a community’s capacity to tackle social and economic problems

such as unemployment, poverty, educational non-participation, and crime (Putnam,

1995); and that social capital, or the lack of it, is a tool of cultural reproduction in main-

taining inequalities, for example through unequal educational achievement (Bourdieu,

1992).

The third perspective, exemplified by the work of Beck, Giddens and Lash, argues that

changes in post-industrial society have led to the emergence of ‘risk’ society. As the old

institutions of industrial society - family, community, social class - are undermined by

globalization, each individual must learn to navigate society for themselves. The most

vulnerable groups in this are the old and the young. (Giddens, 1999) On the one hand,

this allows unprecedented freedom and opportunities. On the other, self and identity

become fragile, and the pressures it generates in terms of having to achieve, conspire to

promote sense of failure, marginalisation and, for some, mental ill-health (Rutter &

Smith, 1995; EGRIS 2001; Lash 2000; Tulloch & Lupton, 2003).

In learning theory, the field has been dominated by constructivism, and a focus on de-

veloping collaborative systems that actively engage the excluded as co-producers of

knowledge. However, there is a counter-prevailing school which emphasizes context and

‘pragmatism’.

Our review of the literature on Learning 2.0 and social exclusion showed that there are

two polarized position around how ICTs and Web 2.0 link to social exclusion. The ‘Utopi-

an’ perspective suggests that ‘evolutionary progression’ and the increasing ubiquity of

ICTs embedded within everyday social, economic and cultural life, are making the notion

of e-inclusion more and more redundant. For example Redecker et al. (2009) cite nu-

60

merous examples to support the view that projects using Learning 2.0 strategies have a

high potential to re-engage excluded groups in learning.

However, the ‘pessimistic’ perspective argues that ICT access, use and quality of use is

highly correlated with social exclusion. The overall conclusion from research is that we

are now witnessing a new ‘exclusion dualism’ where the long-established structural

factors associated with exclusion – family background; education; employment; income

- are being mutually reinforced through lack of access to ICTs and lack of access to digital

skills. For example, the evidence suggests that access patterns for young people are

shaped by ‘habitus’ and lifeworld. Eurostat shows, in 2009, that more than 90 % of

young Europeans aged 16–24 who accessed the Internet within the past 3 months did

so from home and almost 50% from a place of education, whereas a much larger pro-

portion of the older age groups did so from work. This suggests that young people who

are homeless, or NEET (not in education and employment) are much more likely to ex-

perience a ‘dual exclusion’. Data from EU Kids Online, from Eurobarometer 2009 and

from national studies show a clear link between individuals' socio-economic background

and their use of the internet.

A report by Oxford Internet Institute observed, “that technological forms of exclusion

are a reality for significant segments of the population, and that, for some people, they

reinforce and deepen existing disadvantages. Technology is so tightly woven into the

fabric of society today that ICT deprivation can rightly be considered alongside, and

strongly linked to, more traditional twentieth century social deprivations, such as low in-

come, unemployment, poor education, ill health and social isolation. To consider ICT

deprivation as somehow less important underestimates the pace, depth and scale of

technological change, and overlooks the way that different disadvantages can combine

to deepen exclusion”. (Helsper, 2008)

There is a substantial body of evidence to suggest that actual usage of ICTs – and in-

creasingly Web 2.0 – reinforces this process of ‘dual inclusion’. (Facer & Furlong, 2001;

Facer & Selwyn, 2007) Danah Boyd, for example, argues that, in the USA, utilisation of

social networking technologies reflects complex class and status stratifications in Amer-

ican youth. Whereas MySpace is the spiritual home for the culturally and socially mar-

ginalised, Facebook attracts “upwardly mobile hegemonic teens”. As she puts it;

“MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, ‘burnouts’, ‘alternat-

ive kids’, ‘art fags’, punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn't

play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm….. MySpace has most of the

kids who are socially ostracised at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.”

(Boyd, 2007) Livingstone and Helsper (2007) suggest that even though increased access

and usage to ICTs will increase opportunities for children, children from affluent back-

grounds learn better and faster, so that, in the long run, ICTs actually increase social dis-

parities rather than decrease them.

61

Figure 2: e-exclusion spectrum

Other studies show that, although social class and income are key determinants in shap-

ing e-exclusion patterns, cultural factors make the picture even more complex. For ex-

ample, women even in affluent households are less likely to use Web 2.0 because they

are socialised into the perception that ICTs are the territory of husbands and sons. (Cr-

amner, 2008) Similarly, the EU Kids Online studies suggest that there is a growing ‘bed-

room culture’ for teenagers and solitary use of the internet is increasing, particularly for

boys.

These findings suggest that the structural determinants of ‘e-inclusion’ are further com-

plemented by cultural and behavioural factors. Figure 2 provides an illustration of how

this process might work. At one end of a polarity of e-exclusion are people who are ex-

cluded from ICTs by their socio-economic status. However studies suggest that a signific-

ant proportion of EU citizens are ‘self-excluding’ – they have no inclination to participate

in the ‘Knowledge Society’, or who are ‘uninformed’ about opportunities. At the other

end of the spectrum are people who are socially excluded because they are ‘always on-

line’.

The case studies in the theoretical context

The case studies have not provided much evidence to shed further light on the efficacy

of these different perspectives on social inclusion and the role of learning and Learning

2.0 in it. The continuing gaps in our knowledge highlighted by the case studies are:

| How initiatives using ICTs and Web 2.0 contribute to the production of social capital

and community cohesion. Most of the case studies we analysed focus on individual

behaviour changes – even in cases, like TRIO, Conecta Joven and Web in the Hood,

that are specifically located within community environments.

| None of the cases we analysed consider the ‘life politics’ perspective on social inclu-

sion. The ways in which Web 2.0 changes how ‘identities’ are constructed, and how

these link to risk behaviours and risk scenarios, is not covered in the case studies.

| Evaluation and assessment methodologies – the evidence base in the Learning 2.0

field is poorly-developed; fragmentary and contested. An evaluation culture has not

62

yet taken root. Robust and appropriate impacts assessment approaches, methods

and tools are unevenly applied.

| Much of the knowledge that is derived from the case studies is about ‘excluded

groups’. The literature makes a strong case for ‘prevention’ rather than cure. Not

enough is known about ‘risk scenarios’ – the factors that make certain groups in cer-

tain situations more vulnerable to exclusion, and how ICT is being and can be used to

support activities that reduce risk.

| What methodologies and tools can be used to engage excluded people more actively

in the design and implementation of methods, approaches and tools supporting

‘Learning 2.0’ for inclusion?

| The use of 3D and immersive worlds is growing and has produced some positive out-

comes. Yet some of the case studies highlight issues about which little is known.

These cover: new forms of accessibility issues (since many of these technologies are

‘high-end’ and expensive); issues around accessibility for disabled people; issues

around governance and participation of users.

| As noted above, the evidence base in this field is poorly developed. More research is

needed on how learning and practices can be effectively disseminated and valorised.

| The work on NEET and on early-school leaving and how ICTs can address this signific-

ant set of issues is currently under-developed.

7.4 The practices context

State of the art

Our review of the practices carried out in work package 1 showed that five broad

clusters of practices can be distinguished. To some extent these represent relatively

autonomous Learning 2.0 ‘spaces’, with little overlap between them. They can be

defined as follows:

| Personalised Learning Environments - the evidence does suggest the embryonic de-

velopment of ‘PLE’s’. There were a number of initiatives identified in the review that

exhibit a highly individualized approach to inclusion through learning, employing so-

cial networking technologies to support self-directed learning.

| Adult Learning – a primarily institutional learning space that targets adults with low

educational levels and status, and which generally supports informal and non-formal

learning albeit through formal settings such as training centres.

| Special Needs – a significant number of initiatives target distinctive target groups

with particular profiles – mainly covering immigrant and ethnic minorities; people

with disabilities; ex-offenders. The main inclusion approach aims at social re-engage-

ment, using a variety of Web 2.0 tools and approaches.

| Youth at Risk – young people have become the main focus of attention for Web 2.0

for inclusion. The review identified a significant number of initiatives targeting a

range of exclusion and at risk scenarios. A common feature of these initiatives is the

emphasis on cultivating digital literacies.

| NEET – a distinctive sub-category of initiatives aimed at young people are those

aimed at young people not in education or training (NEET). What is distinctive about

63

this cluster is the more intensive use of novel forms of Web 2.0, like virtual reality en-

vironments, and the exploration of innovative forms of pedagogy, for example

‘Notschool’, that create new roles for both student and teacher.

The case studies in the practices context

The case studies analysed in Links-up shed further light on how learning and social inclu-

sion objectives are linked to the use of different combinations of Web 2.0 approaches

and tools. Figure 3 summarises how these practices are related together.

Figure 3: Inter-relationships of the case studies

There are four key clusters that reflect how Web 2.0 use is seen as providing solutions to

the complex social exclusion scenarios outlined above, and the key policies and meas-

ures that are being driven forward at the macro-level to support social and e-inclusion.

These are:

| Reducing social isolation,

| Promoting educational re-insertion,

| Improving health and well-being, particularly for people with disabilities,

| Improving life-chances and opportunities, particularly in the field of employment.

Analysis of the case studies shows that the expected outcomes derived from these inter-

ventions focus primarily on increasing various forms of capital: individual capital (for ex-

ample the acquisition of new digital skills and ‘soft skills’ like team-working); the acquisi-

tion of ‘social capital’ (for example increasing the resilience of communities) and the ac-

quisition of technological capital (for example through improving access to

technologies).

Two dominant implementation activities are carried out by these interventions. The first

one involves delivering courses. These cover a spectrum of subjects and content areas –

particularly IT skills and digital literacy. The second main category, ‘social interaction’, fo-

64

cuses on developing and applying ways of getting people to share experiences, know-

ledge and skills. A number of initiatives support people in ‘telling their stories’. The ap-

proach used reflects a number of desired outcomes, such as encouraging sharing and in-

teraction with others; getting people to valorise their life experiences; using their stories

to create learning content; dealing with ‘otherness’ and promoting acceptance of di-

versity. A similar approach can be found with projects that use multi-media within a

community context. In this way, dealing with difference and supporting interaction

between culturally diverse groups is taken out of the personal space and expanded to

the community and societal level.

Less frequently found are implementation activities involving awareness-raising, coun-

selling, personal development and networking and good practice sharing. With aware-

ness-raising, the aim is to provide people with information that is seen as essential in

providing them with tools to empower themselves, for example their rights under the

law.

A minority of projects provide specific counselling or personal development. Personal

development approaches can be seen in some ways as a ‘social’ variant on counselling,

for example, by providing advice and counselling on finances, social behaviour, mental

health issues, physical condition, motivation, practical skills and daily activities.

Finally, networking and good practice sharing is a small but important category of inclu-

sion strategy operated by projects. The main focus here is not on direct end users, but

on making available to the wider user groups and communities of practice resources,

and evidence-based knowledge, that can support the development and implementation

of actions supporting social inclusion.

The inclusion approaches adopted, and the pedagogic models applied, reflect specific

ideas about which platforms, and which combinations of Web 2.0 are likely to yield the

best results. Virtually all of the cases analysed are web-based, though some use other

forms of technologies, such as community-based broadcasting and mobiles. A number

of initiatives involve some form of audiovisual media, such as videos and video confer-

encing. The applications most commonly used are social networking applications like

Facebook and media-sharing, like YouTube. Blogs and wikis are becoming more com-

monly used, as is the use of virtual environments, like ‘Second Life’, to develop innovat-

ive approaches to ICT-based support for at risk young people. Most projects use a com-

bination of tools to support an integrated approach to inclusion.

Overall, the ‘landscape’ of ‘Inclusive Learning 2.0’ shows many similarities. Indeed, a key

finding of the case study analysis is the extent to which initiatives adopt a multi-dimen-

sional approach to the use of ICTs and Web 2.0 to address social exclusion. Many of the

initiatives analysed are ‘composite’ entities, drawing funding from a range of sources; in-

corporating a range of platforms and tools; pursuing a mixed set of inclusion and learn-

ing objectives and multi-targeting strategies and implementing an integrated set of ser-

vices and activities to realise their objectives. This could reflect the increasing recogni-

tion in the field that social exclusion is multi-dimensional in nature and scope, and that

the needs of socially excluded and at risk people are complex and similarly multi-dimen-

sional and require a holistic and integrated response.

The case studies suggest that the main gaps in the provision of programmes and initiat-

ives in the field of ‘Learning 2.0’ are as follows:

| There is still a strong focus on developing and implementing initiatives aimed at spe-

cific target groups – people with disabilities; the unemployed, and so on. This reflects

the persistence of a prevailing view that social inclusion is homogeneous. However, it

65

is clear from the evidence that social exclusion is complex and multi-dimensional;

that people present ‘multiple needs’, and that these needs change over time and in

different situations. Initiatives need to be more flexible and responsive to the fluidity

of social inclusion.

| Very little attention has been paid to the ‘cultural’ dimension of inclusion and learn-

ing, beyond the broad identification of macro-cultural concepts for example the pri-

oritization of Immigrant and Ethnic Minorities. Virtually no work has been done, and

no initiatives identified that addresses, for example: women’s position of e-exclusion

within the household environment; the position of ‘technophobes’ and ‘uninformed’

and ‘disinclined’; how ‘extremists’ – those who are ‘always on-line’ – are affected by

immersion in the Web 2.0 world.

| Few initiatives address the role of organizational culture within the educational en-

terprise. There is some evidence, for example, in schools, that organizational resist-

ance is inhibiting the use of Web 2.0 in teaching. There is also evidence that the use

of Web 2.0 in the classroom is actually exacerbating differences in educational per-

formance between students from higher status backgrounds and those from lower

status backgrounds.

| Many initiatives take an individuated approach to inclusion. Few of them, with the

exception of TRIO, Web in the Hood and Conecta Joven, consider the broader com-

munity and societal issues, and how Web 2.0 can impact on social capital and com-

munity cohesion.

| As noted above, the role of multipliers, mediators and intermediaries is critical in

successful initiatives. Very few projects address the need for training of these key

actors.

| Many initiatives are ‘insular’ in the sense that they fail to bridge the gap between the

inner world of the initiative and the harsh realities of the external environment. For

example, initiatives that provide training in e-skills for ethnic minority women can fail

when these newly-acquired skills cannot be used within the local labour market be-

cause there is no demand for them. There is a need for new initiatives that take into

account and address how research and R&D results in the field can be effectively ap-

plied to external conditions.

66

8 A ‘THEORY OF CHANGE’ INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS

8.1 Introduction: Theory of change and impact assessment

In work package 1, we developed an approach to assessing the ‘effects’ of initiatives us-

ing Learning 2.0 to support social inclusion that was based on a ‘theory of change’ mod-

el. Theory of change approaches seek to identify both the explicit and implicit paradigm

of change that lies at the heart of a programme or initiative – in other words the ‘trans-

formative model’ that is embedded within it.

Theory of change involves unpacking the theory behind interventions - i.e. the intended

outcomes – that underpin their ‘vision’ and their ‘intervention logic’ (Weiss, 1995; Sulli-

van & Stewart, 2006). On the one hand, the theory of change method helps to identify

what are the intended outcomes and impacts of the policies and initiatives that are be-

ing implemented using Web 2.0 to support excluded people and those at risk. On the

other, it represents a methodological strategy that aims to solve some of the problems

that crop up in research in trying to establish ‘cause and effect’ in complex and dynamic

situations – for example what kind of technology works best in supporting inclusion.

It can be defined as a systematic and cumulative study of the links between activities,

outcomes and context. It involves the specification of an explicit theory of how and why

an intervention is intended to or might have caused an effect. The focus of the theory of

change approach is therefore on causal pathways.

Theory of change is particularly useful in situations where impacts measurement data is

variable, and where evaluations of interventions have not followed ‘experimental’ ap-

proaches, for example using ‘control-comparison’ methods. This was the situation with

the Links-up case studies. Some of the cases had not carried out impacts assessment at

all. In many cases, the impacts assessment is based on ‘self-reported’ data provided by

the projects themselves and based on, for example, the subjective opinions of project

managers.

Following Jan Steyaert (2010), we looked at how the cases are positioned in terms of the

approaches taken to impacts assessment in terms of the ‘effectiveness ladder’ model.

This has five levels to reflect the ‘robustness’ of the evidence used on impacts assess-

ment, as follows:

| Level 0: ‘Marketing information’ – spreading good news about how things are done.

| Level 1: Expert opinion; descriptive studies; case studies.

| Level 2: Cohort studies – surveys; correlation analysis for example between participa-

tion in an initiative and educational performance.

| Level 3: Experimental studies – for example user surveys and baseline statistical ana-

lysis done before and after the intervention (pre-test/post-test).

| Level 4: Randomised controlled trials.

In relation to the ‘effectiveness ladder’, the majority of initiatives are placed on the low-

est level of the effectiveness ladder – Level 0. This typically involves the use of ‘market-

ing information’ – spreading good news about how things are done; providing anecdotal

evidence of positive outcomes. A small proportion use ‘Level 1’ assessment, which is

mainly carried out through ‘external’ evaluation done by experts; through descriptive

studies, and through case studies. Around a third use ‘Level 2’ assessment, involving co-

hort studies – user surveys; correlation analysis of statistical data that measures the re-

67

lationship for example between participation in an initiative and educational perform-

ance. A small proportion use ‘Level 3’ approaches, entailing experimental studies – for

example user surveys and baseline statistical analysis done before and after the inter-

vention (pre-test/post-test). One example is ‘Replay’, which carried out extensive before

and after testing of the user game. We found no initiative that had implemented the

‘gold standard’ of assessment – randomised controlled trials.

Most impacts assessment methods used in the case studies involves carrying out sur-

veys with users. The other two most frequently used assessment methods involved

‘technology utilisation’ data analysis and interviews. The analysis of the use patterns of

platforms and tools used to deliver services to young people is a convenient way of find-

ing out how effective the initiative is. A common method is to analyse website visits and

hits using ‘Google analytics’ or a similar monitoring tool. Analysis of Web 2.0 tools and

applications is also often applied. This involves statistical analysis of participation and

utilisation rates in social networking sites, as well as qualitative analysis of applications

like podcasts and discussion forums, using techniques like content analysis. For example,

Cyberhus registers and analyses each chat session when it is completed. This provides

statistics on duration, age, sex, and topic.

Most of the cases used ‘triangulation’ – combining a number of methods in order to ar-

rive at a more systematic evidence-based view of impacts. For example, Notschool have

developed a very sophisticated monitoring system which enables them to track all pro-

gress made by students, from their activity around the site, to emails from their tutors

as well as their replies. Annual evaluation includes: analysis of attendance rates; analysis

of course completions; socio-economic profiling of participants; user surveys.

On the basis of the available data, we present below the results of our analysis of the

‘impacts’ identified in the case studies.

8.2 Evidence on impacts

As noted above, the impacts assessments carried out by the initiatives selected for case

study analysis vary considerably in approach, relevance and credibility. Many of them

employed ‘self-assessment’ approaches and methods, rather than more objective ways

of evaluating evidence. Against this background, we have applied ‘triangulation’ to the

data drawn from the initiatives survey. This involves cross-checking of data to search for

regularities in the research data. We have distinguished between the outputs, outcomes

and impacts of initiatives in our approach to reviewing the ‘effects’ of initiatives. We

have also reviewed the ‘expected’ outcomes and impacts as set against the actual out-

comes and impacts as reported by the initiatives themselves.

Our analysis suggested two dominant implementation activities carried out by projects.

The first one involves delivering courses, for example Conecta Joven. These cover a

spectrum of subjects and content areas – particularly IT skills and digital literacy. The

second main category, ‘social interaction’, focuses on developing and applying ways of

getting users to share experiences, knowledge and skills. Some of the cases – for ex-

ample HiStory and Pinokio- support people in ‘telling their stories’. The approach used

reflects a number of desired outcomes, such as encouraging sharing and interaction

with others; getting people to valorise their life experiences; using their stories to create

learning content; dealing with ‘otherness’ and promoting acceptance of diversity. A sim-

ilar approach can be found with projects that use multi-media within a community con-

text – for example ‘Web in the Hood’. In this way, dealing with difference and supporting

interaction between culturally diverse groups is taken out of the personal space and ex-

panded to the community and societal level.

68

Less frequently found are activities involving awareness-raising, counselling, personal

development and networking and good practice sharing. With awareness-raising, the

aim is to provide people with information that is seen as essential in providing them

with tools to empower themselves, for example the products and training available for

disabled people, as illustrated by the Assistive Technology Wiki. Counselling services are

either on-line one-to-one services providing support on things like self-harm, or services

where ICTs are used to supplement other counselling methods, like group therapy, for

example Cyberhus. Personal development approaches can be seen in some ways as a

‘social’ variant on counselling, for example EduCore.

On terms of expected short-term outcomes, one group of cases aim to support inclusion

through developing technical skills, primarily through providing courses, for example

ICONET and Conecta Joven. Another group focus on addressing social isolation. These

cover a range of risk scenarios – from the estrangement of immigrant and ethnic minor-

ity groups from their ‘host’ culture through to issues associated with young people who

have problems in going to school, for example Notschool. A third group aims to improve

the social skills of participants, through team-working and social interaction, for ex-

ample Avatar@School. A fourth category anticipates increasing participants’ chances of

success in the labour market, for example FreqOut!.

The actual short term outcomes reported by initiatives are difficult to quantify, since

data are not readily available across cases. That said, the main areas in which positive

outcomes were reported by the initiatives were as follows:

| Re-engagement in education and training – some initiatives reported that parti-

cipants had taken up further study.

| Social skills and social interaction – some initiatives reported improvements in parti-

cipants’ social skills and social engagement.

| Physical, psychological and emotional well-being – most projects reported improve-

ments in user confidence and self-esteem.

| Technical skills and digital literacy – most of the projects reported improvements in

the acquisition of technical and ICT skills.

| Employment – a small number of initiatives reported that participants had gone on

to find work.

Examples of the outcomes reported include:

| Schome Park – a virtual world for young people who have dropped out of the educa-

tion system showed clear evidence that users developed their knowledge age skills

throughout the project and included communication, leadership, collaborative learn-

ing, creativity, development of analytical skills.

| Notschool – the alternative on-line school has successfully enabled 98% of young

learners to re-engage in learning. Other evidence suggests: increasing in motivation

to learn; increasing confidence and self-esteem; developing advanced technical skills;

acquire qualifications.

| MOSEP – an initiative using Web 2.0 to develop the competences of trainers engaged

in supporting the inclusion of young people with poor education through e-portfolios

reported that teachers and trainee teachers involved in the project were able to de-

velop their own e-portfolios and help their students create e-portfolios. Students in-

69

volved in the partner institutions learned how to collect and organise evidence for

their e-portfolio, make choices about what to select and omit, as well as reflecting on

and evaluating their own work as well as the work of their peers. 93% of students felt

‘proud’ of their E-Me portfolio, 81% felt that it helped them to ‘record what I have

learnt and done’, 64% ‘enjoyed’ working on their E-Me and 67% felt that they would

continue using and developing their E-Me without school involvement.

| Avatar@School - aims to develop capacities in conflict mediation for young people

through the use of a 3D virtual platform as well as increasing ICT skills and indirectly

improving intercultural and language skills. In general, according to the project man-

agers the project seems to have achieved its aims. School peer mediation and virtual

role plays have proven to be excellent learning methods if combined together. In

total, 94% of respondents said that they had a “very good” (36%) or “good” (58%)

impression.

| BREAKOUT – an initiative aimed at reducing youth offending – reports that the areas

in which BREAKOUT has worked particularly well, and has had a ‘High impact’ for

users include: raising awareness amongst young people of key issues around crime,

drugs and how they effect life choices and life chances; providing e-skills and social

skills training to serving inmates in prisons via a blended e-learning model. Areas

where BREAKOUT has made a moderate contribution include: Contributing to im-

proving offenders’ personal relationships, for example by raising self-esteem and so-

cial skills; contributing to improving the effectiveness of service administration.

The expected longer-term impacts reported by initiatives reflect three main visions: the

vision of social cohesion and social capital; the vision of improving lifelong learning and

the vision of increasing employment. These goals are consistent with current EU

policies, as reflected in EU 2020; the ET 2020 agenda and the renewed Lisbon goals. Less

highly prioritised are impacts in ICT access and skills; crime reduction; health improve-

ment; reducing homeless and the integration of immigrants and ethnic minorities.

Virtually all of the cases had no evidence to assess whether these long-term impacts are

being realised. In almost all cases, the projects reported that ‘it was too early to say’.

However, a number of the initiatives reported evidence of ‘potential impacts’. For ex-

ample, the Notschool project reports that 50% of students entered into further educa-

tion, 26% entered college related employment and 18% entered full time employment.

This suggests that the initiative has contributed investment to young people’s future.

The FreqOut! project reports anecdotal evidence of ‘breaking down the barriers

between different groups’, e.g. inter-generational; gang cultures.’

However, the initiatives survey identified a number of barriers to realising objectives.

The key problems are:

| Getting target groups motivated and then retaining their interest;

| Accessing intermediaries with the skills necessary to deliver objectives;

| |Securing funding and ensuring sustainability;

| Technical problems, associated with: poor equipment; technical support; the rapid

obsolescence of ‘high end’ technologies;

| Getting young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to engage with other young

people from different cultures;

| Managing initiatives and promoting good governance;

70

| Getting innovative and unconventional educational and training initiatives accred-

ited.

8.3 Summary of impacts: general theory of change analysis

In this final section, we provide an integrative summary of the impacts identified from

applying the ‘theory of change’ approach to the case study analysis using a ‘logical mod-

el’. This presents the overall linkages across the case studies as a whole between:

| Objectives and goals,

| The activities planned or being implemented to achieve the objectives and goals,

| The expected outputs associated with the activities,

| The expected outcomes and impacts realised by using the outputs,

| The indicators used to measure the outcomes and impacts,

| The means of verification – the data collected to verify indicators.

Key objectives / goals Key activities Key outcomes Key expected impacts

Reduce isolation Awareness-raising and

communication

Counselling & Personal

development

Social interaction

Improve social skills and

social interaction

Integration of isolated

and IEM

Increase social cohesion

and social capital

Educational re-insertion Training


development

Re-engagement in edu-

cation and training

Supporting and improv-

ing lifelong learning

Improve well-being Counselling & Personal

development

Social interaction

Improve social skills and

social interaction

Improve physical, psy-

chological and emotional

well-being

Improve health

Increase employability Training


development

Improve technical skills

and digital literacy

Find new employment

Increasing employment

Table 11: Summary of case study results based on ‘theory of change’ analysis

As table 11 shows, the case studies have identified four main clusters of objectives of

‘Learning 2.0 for inclusion’. These are associated with a set of implementation activities

that are to some extent common across the different objectives clusters. The four sets

of objectives are in turn linked to four main sets of outcomes and expected impacts.

However, the case study analysis suggests that most initiatives have not clearly identi-

fied the indicators and means of verification that are required to assess the extent to

which and in what ways these outcomes and impacts are being achieved. Therefore

these aspects are not included in the table.

71

9 LITERATURE AND SOURCES

| Australian Flexible Learning Community (2004). Skills Audits – Examples. Online avail-

able at: http://community.flexiblelearning.net.au/ProfessionalDevelopment/content/

article_5531.htm [2010-10-15]

| Berkman, Lisa F. & Kawachi, Ichiro (Eds.) (2000). Social Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford

University Press

| Bourdieu, Pierre (1992). Language and Symbolic Power. Edited and introduced by J.

B. Thompson, translated by G. Raymond and M. Adamson, Cambridge: Polity Press.

| Boyd, Danah (2007). Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and

MySpace. Apophenia Blog Essay, June 24, 2007, http://www.danah.org/papers/es-

says/ClassDivisions.html

| Burchardt, Tania; Le Grand, Julian & Piachaud, David (2002). Degrees of exclusion:

Developing a dynamic, multidimensional measure, pp. 30-43 in Hills, Le Grand and

Piachaud (Eds.).

| Casacuberta Sevilla, David (2007). Digital Inclusion: Best practices from eLearning.

eLearning Papers, no. 6. Online available from http://www.elearningpapers.eu/in-

dex.php?page=doc&doc_id=10635&doclng=6 [2010-04-20]

| Chen, Huey-Tsyh (1990). Theory Driven Evaluation. Newbury Park, Sage.

| Coleman, James S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. In: Americ-

an Journal of Sociology: Vol. 94, Issue Supplement, pp. 95-120.

| Coleman, John C. & Hendry, Leo B. (1999). The Nature of Adolescence. 3rd edition.

London: Routledge.

| Cullen, Joe; Cullen, Clare; Hayward, Damian & Maes, Veronique (2009). Good Prac-

tices for Learning 2.0: Promoting Inclusion. An In-depth Study of Eight Learning 2.0

Cases. JRC Technical Note 53578. Online available from http://ipts.jrc. ec.europa.eu/

publications/pub.cfm?id=2600 [2010-04-20]

| Downes, Stephen (2005). E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine. Online available from

http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?article=29-1&section=articles [2010-04-20]

| EC Communication (2007).Ageing well in the Information Society. Online available at:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2007/com2007_0332en01.pdf

| EGRIS: European Group for Integrated Social Research (2001). Misleading trajector-

ies: Transition dilemmas of young adults in Europe. In: Journal of Youth Studies, 4(1),

pp. 101-18.

| e-Inclusion: Be Part of It! (2007). Online available at: http://ec.europa.eu/informa-

tion_society/activities/einclusion/bepartofit/index_en.htm [2010-09-10]

| Elstad, Jon Ivar (1998). The psycho-social perspective on social inequalities in health.

In: Bartley M., Blane D., Davey Smith G. (Eds.). The Sociology of Health Inequalities.

Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 39–58.

| eLearning Papers (2010). eLearning Papers Nr. 19 – April 2010. Online available from

http://www.elearningpapers.eu/index.php?lng=en&page=home [2010-04-27]

73

| European Commission (2004). Joint Report on Social Inclusion Brussels. Online avail-

able at: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/final_joint_inclu-

sion_report_2003_en.pdf

| Facer, Keri & Furlong, Ruth (2001). Beyond the myth of the ‘Cyberkid’: young people

at the margins of the information revolution. In: Journal of Youth Studies, 4(4), pp.

451-469.

| Facer, Keri & Selwyn, Neil (2007). Beyond the Digital Divide: Rethinking Digital Inclu-

sion for the 21st Century. Bristol: Futurelab.

| Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.

| Georghiou, Luke & Clarysse, Bart (2006). Behavioural Additionality of R&D Grants -

Introduction and Synthesis.

| Giddens, Anthony (1999). Runaway World. London: Profile Books.

| Glass, Norman (2000). Social exclusion: concepts, measurement and policy. Paper de-

livered at the seventh annual Cathie Marsh Memorial Seminar jointly hosted by the

Royal Statistical Society and Social Research Association, 2000

| Habermas, Jürgen (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action, London: Beacon

Press.

| Helsper, Ellen J. (2008). Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the

Information Society. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute.

| Hilzensauer, Wolf & Buchberger, Gerlinde (2009). MOSEP - More Self-Esteem with

My E-Portfolio Development of a Train-the-Trainer Course for E-Portfolio Tutors. In-

ternational Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. Online available from

http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/820 [2010-04-20]

| Horton, Myles & Freire, Paulo (1990). We make the road by walking: conversation on

educational and social change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

| i2010 initiative (2005). A European Information Society for growth and employment.

Available online at:

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/index_en.htm [2010-09-15]

| Kuiper, Else R. (2007). Web in de Wijk – Web in Neighbourhoods. Online available at:

http://www.epractice.eu/cases/WebindeWijk [2010-10-17]

| Lash, Scott (2000). Risk culture, pp. 47-62. In: Adam, B., Beck, U., van Loon, J. (Eds.).

The Risk Society and Beyond. London: Sage.

| Lisbon Declaration (2006). An Alliance for Social Cohesion through Digital Inclusion,

Lisbon, 28-29 April 2006. Available online at:

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/latin-america/regional-cooperation/alis/docu-

ments/lisbon_declaration_en.pdf [2010-09-16]

| Livingstone, Sonia & Helsper, Ellen J. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children,

young people and the digital divide. In: New Media & Society, 9(4), pp. 671-696.

| Nielsen, Jakob (2006): Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contrib-

ute. Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, October 9, 2006. Online available at: http://www.u-

seit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html

| Osimo, David; De Luca, Annalisa & Codagnone, Cristiano (2010). e-Inclusion initatives

from private and non-profit European entities. Online available from

74

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/einclu-

sion_initiatives_in_europe/index_en.htm [2010-04-20]

| Pedler, Mike (1997). What do we mean by action learning? A story and three inter-

pretations. In: Pedler, M. (ed.) Action Learning in Practice, Hampshire, England,

Gower Publishing, pp. 61-75.

| Pedró, Francesc (2006). The new Millennium Learners: Challenging our Views on ICT

and Learning. OECD-CERI. Online available from

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/1/38358359.pdf [2010-04-20]

| Peña-López, Ismael (2007). “Web 2.0 and Telecentres for e-Inclusion”. ICTlogy, #50,

November 2007. Barcelona: ICTlogy.

| Putnam, Robert D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In: Journ-

al of Democracy: Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 65-78.

| Redecker, Christine; Ala-Mutka, Kirsti; Bacigalupo, Margherita; Ferrari, Anusca &

Punie, Yves(2009). Learning 2.0: The Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education

and Training in Europe. Final Report. Seville: Joint Research Centre Institute for Pro-

spective Technological Studies. Online available at:

http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/Learning-2.0.html [2010-04-20]

| Riga Ministerial Declaration (2006). Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/informa-

tion_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf[2010-09-16]

| Rutter, Michael & Smith, David (Eds.) (1995). Psychological Disorders in Young

People: Time Trends and their Causes. London: John Wiley and Sons.

| Schaffert, Sandra; Cullen, Joe; Hilzensauer, Wolf & Wieden-Bischof, Diana (2010). In-

clusion through Learning and Web 2.0 - A New Project for Better Policies and Initiat-

ives. In: V. Hornung-Prähauser & M. Luckmann (Ed.), Die lernende Organisation. Vom

Web-2.0-Solisten zur Web-2.0-Jazzband, Salzburg: Salzburg Research, p. 57–64.

| Schoon, Ingrid & Bynner, John (2003). Risk and resilience in the life course: Implica-

tions for interventions and social policies. In: Journal of Youth Studies, 6(1), pp. 21-

31.

| Steyaert, Jan (2010). Where the worlds of e-inclusion and evidence based practice

meet. In: Engelen, Jan et. al. (Eds.): Proceedings of the INCLUSIO 2010 Conference,

“Social Media for Social Inclusion of Youth at Risk”, Catholic University of Leuven, 13-

14 September 2010, pp. 151-159.

| Sullivan, Helen & Stewart, Murray (2006). Who owns the Theory of Change? In: Eva-

luation, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 179-199.

| The Federal Chancellery (2008). E-inclusion in Austria. Fields of action and examples.

Online available at: http://www.austria.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=34376 [2010-04-

27]

| Tulloch, John & Lupton, Deborah (2003). Risk and Everyday Life. London: Sage.

| Weiss, Carol H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based

evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In: J. P.

Connell et al. (Eds.). New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts,

Methods, and Contexts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

| Yin, Robert K. (2002). Case Study Research. Design and Methods. Third Edition. App-

lied social research method series Volume 5. Sage Publications. California.

75

Against the background of the increasing penetration of social computing and social networking into all aspects of modern life, the Links-up project investigates whether and under what circumstances ‘Web 2.0’ technologies can support lifelong learning for people who experience social exclusion or who are ‘at risk’ of social exclusion.This report, which covers the initial phase of the two-year project, draws together the evidence from research studies, evaluations and case studies of initiatives to present the main features of the ‘landscape’ of ‘Web 2.0 for inclusive learning’.

Links-up identifies ‘what works for whom under what circumstances’ and con-siders how the outcomes and impacts of using Web 2.0 for inclusive learning can be measured. Finally, on the basis of the ‘lessons learned’ and the pitfalls experienced in developing and implementing Web 2.0-based support for excluded groups, the Report provides practical recommendations for policy- makers and practitioners in order to help make future programmes and projects in this field more effective.

MO

BILE

GEM

EIN

SCH

AFTE

N –

Erf

olgr

eich

e Be

ispi

ele

aus d

en B

erei

chen

Spi

elen

, Ler

nen

und

Ges

undh

eit

ISBN 978-3-902448-28-6

Lin

ks-u

p –

Le

arn

ing

2.0

for

an

Incl

usi

ve K

no

wle

dg

e s

oc

iety

– U

ntd

ers

tan

din

g t

he

Pir

ctu

re

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication refl ects the views only of the author(s), and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.


Photos: Fotolia.com © Coka, Franz Pfl uegl, Jason Sitt, Miroslav, Mosquidoo, Yvonne Bogdanski

Edited by Guntram Geser, Salzburg Research

Authors: Davide Calenda, Clare Cullen, Joe Cullen, Thomas Fischer, Guntram Geser, Renate Hahner, Martijn Hartog, Damian Hayward, Wolf Hilzensauer, Else Rose Kuiper, Veronique Maes, Bert Mulder, Katharina Nasemann, Sandra Schön, Diana Wieden-Bischof

www.links-up.eu

learning 2.0 for an inclusive knowledge society

Education

mundo de estrellas

fast internet connection

arcola research llp

deepen existing disadvantages

measuring learning gains

offender rehabilitation services

fear loosing control

salzburg research forschungsgesellschaft